https://apnews.com/article/beijing-chin ... 7e62b65000

"BEIJING (AP) — Beijing launched a new-generation aircraft carrier Friday, the first such ship to be both designed and built in China, in a milestone as it seeks to extend the range and power of its navy.

The Type 003 carrier christened Fujian left its drydock at a shipyard outside Shanghai in the morning and tied up at a nearby pier, state media reports said.

State broadcaster CCTV showed assembled navy personnel standing beneath the massive ship as water jets sprayed over its deck, multi-colored streamers flew and colorful smoke was released.

Equipped with the latest weaponry and aircraft-launch technology, the Type 003 ship’s capabilities are thought to rival those of Western carriers, as Beijing seeks to turn its navy, already the world’s largest, into a multi-carrier force."

Built their own from the ground up.

Amazing how fast they were able to resolve any issues with EMALS.....
Awaiting their testing of the especially aircraft operations.

par13del wrote:

Amazing how fast they were able to resolve any issues with EMALS.....
Awaiting their testing of the especially aircraft operations.

They have yet to embark an air wing and qualify their version of EMALS. That is probably 2 years away yet. They may have learned from the early US experience with EMALS, but we may never know. Unlike the US where program problems are publicly evaluated by GAO and the various IG's, then trumpeted by the media, the Chinese system is cloaked in secrecy.

May rival in design, but the USN has 75 years of carrier aviation experience in 4 wars, innumerable deployments, world-wide, which is hard to beat.

Hopefully, the Chinese are just as "competent" as their Russian allies.

Avatar2go wrote:

par13del wrote:

Amazing how fast they were able to resolve any issues with EMALS.....
Awaiting their testing of the especially aircraft operations.

They have yet to embark an air wing and qualify their version of EMALS. That is probably 2 years away yet. They may have learned from the early US experience with EMALS, but we may never know. Unlike the US where program problems are publicly evaluated by GAO and the various IG's, then trumpeted by the media, the Chinese system is cloaked in secrecy.

It would be interesting to see if they designed their own EMALS or is it a copy of the US system through espionage

But yes they still have a long way to go before they can do what the US can do. The US has the ability to launch full carrier strike 24/7 which requires a minimum of 2 carriers

It's somehow comforting to downplay new rival/ enemy's I guess.

And if we are clearly leapfrogged, look the other way or state it's really propaganda, unfair.


https://mobile.twitter.com/alvinfoo/sta ... 1181184005

China has three major hurdles to cross:

They need to master sustained emals operation with their full variety of aircraft. They need to get their indigenous carrier aircraft through development and into sustained high frequency operations. They need to get the logistics tail for a full carrier strike group mastered for operations far away from their shores. None of that is easy. We've been working at that for most of a century and we still don't always get it right.

This carrier is their proof of concept carrier for regional operations and high tempo operations of a strike group. It will be useful for when and what they do with Taiwan. It's supposedly certain that the next carrier will be nuclear powered. That's their final product that will be mass produced, and mass produced it will be.

I've got no problem believing that, in as little as five years, they will have a nuclear carrier with a full flight wing that can sustain operations anywhere in the world that they want to. The US had better be prepared for that eventuality.

keesje wrote:

It's somehow comforting to downplay new rival/ enemy's I guess.

And if we are clearly leapfrogged, look the other way or state it's really propaganda, unfair.


https://mobile.twitter.com/alvinfoo/sta ... 1181184005

Nobody is downplaying anything. We're just not being Chicken Little. Also, what their HSR network is has no relation to their military capabilities...apples and oranges.

johns624 wrote:

keesje wrote:

It's somehow comforting to downplay new rival/ enemy's I guess.

And if we are clearly leapfrogged, look the other way or state it's really propaganda, unfair.


https://mobile.twitter.com/alvinfoo/sta ... 1181184005

Nobody is downplaying anything. We're just not being Chicken Little. Also, what their HSR network is has no relation to their military capabilities...apples and oranges.

Does make you wonder why some in Europe had a problem with Obama shift to the Pacific.
On the other hand, when you have strong central government this is what you can do, how is this any different from the infrastructure put in place in Europe, I am sure they served as the Chinese template.

par13del wrote:

On the other hand, when you have strong central government this is what you can do, how is this any different from the infrastructure put in place in Europe, I am sure they served as the Chinese template.

There's infrastructure, then there's infrastructures.

Have never been to China, but for some reason, I have the suspicious feeling that Mainland Chinese infrastructure are not as robust as say Taiwan or Singapor or Europe.

bt

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

On the other hand, when you have strong central government this is what you can do, how is this any different from the infrastructure put in place in Europe, I am sure they served as the Chinese template.

There's infrastructure, then there's infrastructures.

Have never been to China, but for some reason, I have the suspicious feeling that Mainland Chinese infrastructure are not as robust as say Taiwan or Singapor or Europe.

bt

I have been. At least a dozen times. You are mistaken.

But back to the carriers: I doubt china has a problem building a competitive carrier with competitive systems. That said, I also doubt they can tackle the whole of battle logistics of an efficient carrier strike group in the next couple of years. Learning that skill is a twenty year endeavour, I estimate.

N14AZ wrote:

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

My guess is environmental protection for the incomplete EMALS system. Keeps workers nice and dry while they finish installing the system.

Nicoeddf wrote:

I have been. At least a dozen times. You are mistaken.

I will defer to your experience. Did you travel much beyond the big metro area?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

My guess is environmental protection for the incomplete EMALS system. Keeps workers nice and dry while they finish installing the system.


bt

Perhaps to also keep prying eyes (Western spy satellites) out.......

bikerthai wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

My guess is environmental protection for the incomplete EMALS system. Keeps workers nice and dry while they finish installing the system.

Nicoeddf wrote:

I have been. At least a dozen times. You are mistaken.

I will defer to your experience. Did you travel much beyond the big metro area?

bt

I would love to say yes, as it is a plan in the making for a long time, but it was mostly for business and then a wedding in a couple of different metro areas, mainly around PVG, HKG and Shenzhen.
But one thing is clear, the infrastructure is very good and there is no reason to believe that a km of rail is of lesser quality along the new build tracks in the countryside than it is in the metro.

Still, dictatorships and or one-party-governments tend to be good in creating affordable an quality infrastructure and (military) hardware. They often lack in upkeep and organization long term. The latter can’t be said for china, though. Pretty well organized as it is.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Still, dictatorships and or one-party-governments tend to be good in creating affordable.....

Don't know about affordable it just that they do what they want to do at the expense of the rest with no complaints.

bikerthai wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

My guess is environmental protection for the incomplete EMALS system. Keeps workers nice and dry while they finish installing the system.

Thank you for your feedback.

Nicoeddf wrote:

I have been. At least a dozen times. You are mistaken.

bikerthai wrote:

I will defer to your experience. Did you travel much beyond the big metro area?

bt

Before Covid I used to travel all over China, from South China close to Vietnam to North China close to the Russian border. I use German long distance trains almost on a daily basis. I SWEAR TO YOU, THEIR RAILWAY SYSTEM WORKS WAY BETTER THAN OUR OLD ONE DOES.

Ok, it’s literally brand new whereas ours is old. But right now their system is superior.

Does their carrier have any particularly notable features? I already know about the EMALS. And I understand this is the first one built in China (which is a big deal).

william wrote:

https://apnews.com/article/beijing-china-shanghai-government-and-politics-6ce51d1901b3a5658cc9ef7e62b65000

"BEIJING (AP) — Beijing launched a new-generation aircraft carrier Friday, the first such ship to be both designed and built in China, in a milestone as it seeks to extend the range and power of its navy.

The Type 003 carrier christened Fujian left its drydock at a shipyard outside Shanghai in the morning and tied up at a nearby pier, state media reports said.

State broadcaster CCTV showed assembled navy personnel standing beneath the massive ship as water jets sprayed over its deck, multi-colored streamers flew and colorful smoke was released.

Equipped with the latest weaponry and aircraft-launch technology, the Type 003 ship’s capabilities are thought to rival those of Western carriers, as Beijing seeks to turn its navy, already the world’s largest, into a multi-carrier force."

Built their own from the ground up.

EMALS...."built their own from the ground up"...riiiight.....

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war?

Their relations "at an all-time high (with Russia) " and (China) reaffirmed their commitment to "consistently deepen the comprehensive partnership." with the Russia (CNN). So if Russia isn't the enemy, who is?

One of the critical uses of a Carrier Battle Group is to take the war (or threat of) to the enemies homeland. It's what the USN has done since the end of WWII. Even the Soviet's didn't build carriers.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war?

Their relations "at an all-time high (with Russia) " and (China) reaffirmed their commitment to "consistently deepen the comprehensive partnership." with the Russia (CNN). So if Russia isn't the enemy, who is?

One of the critical uses of a Carrier Battle Group is to take the war (or threat of) to the enemies homeland. It's what the USN has done since the end of WWII. Even the Soviet's didn't build carriers.

Stalin wanted to post WW2 but Khrushchev canceled the project, both ships and aircraft.

It would be another 30 years before the next project, I don’t count the Kiev Class in the 70’s with their near useless Yak-36, those ships main armament were their ASM’s and SAM’s, even the next class had elements of these too and are poor carriers, having serious limits on the payloads of the aircraft.
I get the impression that the Soviet, now Russian navy are still trying to live down that unfortunate expedition to the other side of the world early in the last century.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war

So they can project their power into the South China Sea.

bt

johns624 wrote:

keesje wrote:

It's somehow comforting to downplay new rival/ enemy's I guess.

And if we are clearly leapfrogged, look the other way or state it's really propaganda, unfair.


https://mobile.twitter.com/alvinfoo/sta ... 1181184005

Nobody is downplaying anything. We're just not being Chicken Little. Also, what their HSR network is has no relation to their military capabilities...apples and oranges.

The Chinese shipbuilding industry is vastly superior to the US industry. USS Ford took 8 years to build, Fijian 6. The type 004 CVN is allegedly already laid down for a 2024 launch.

HSR proves how quickly they can act, also they have maglev trains which is related to EMALS.

GDB wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war?

Their relations "at an all-time high (with Russia) " and (China) reaffirmed their commitment to "consistently deepen the comprehensive partnership." with the Russia (CNN). So if Russia isn't the enemy, who is?

One of the critical uses of a Carrier Battle Group is to take the war (or threat of) to the enemies homeland. It's what the USN has done since the end of WWII. Even the Soviet's didn't build carriers.

Stalin wanted to post WW2 but Khrushchev canceled the project, both ships and aircraft.

It would be another 30 years before the next project, I don’t count the Kiev Class in the 70’s with their near useless Yak-36, those ships main armament were their ASM’s and SAM’s, even the next class had elements of these too and are poor carriers, having serious limits on the payloads of the aircraft.
I get the impression that the Soviet, now Russian navy are still trying to live down that unfortunate expedition to the other side of the world early in the last century.

Near useless Yak-38, the Yak-36 was just a VTOL demonstrator, but I agree with you on the sentiment.

Kiwirob wrote:

The Chinese shipbuilding industry is vastly superior to the US industry. USS Ford took 8 years to build, Fijian 6. The type 004 CVN is allegedly already laid down for a 2024 launch.

How many years before it's part of the fleet on a regular basis, though?

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

The Chinese shipbuilding industry is vastly superior to the US industry. USS Ford took 8 years to build, Fijian 6. The type 004 CVN is allegedly already laid down for a 2024 launch.

How many years before it's part of the fleet on a regular basis, though?

No idea, but Shandong was commissioned in 2019 and reached IOC in 2020.

Everyone talks about the USN being well versed in naval warfare, better than everyone else, but lets face it the USN hasn't had a fleet on fleet naval confrontation since 1945, bombing the Middle East from a carrier isn't the same as fighting an enemy who will fight back. .

Kiwirob wrote:

Everyone talks about the USN being well versed in naval warfare, better than everyone else, but lets face it the USN hasn't had a fleet on fleet naval confrontation since 1945,

The only two countries with any fleet naval confrontation experience since 1945 are the UK and Argentina.

But really, if fleet battle experience is evaluated, then you have to consider the concept "Train as you fight and fight as you train". From this point, then the many multinational excersise that the US and its allies should give it a leg up over the Chinese.

We have seen how Russian "excersises" are pretty much a sham and does not prepare its forces for real war. Even if the Chinese doctrine does not follow the Russian examples, then it will be years before Chinese fleet excersises bring them up to speed.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Everyone talks about the USN being well versed in naval warfare, better than everyone else, but lets face it the USN hasn't had a fleet on fleet naval confrontation since 1945,

The only two countries with any fleet naval confrontation experience since 1945 are the UK and Argentina.

But really, if fleet battle experience is evaluated, then you have to consider the concept "Train as you fight and fight as you train". From this point, then the many multinational excersise that the US and its allies should give it a leg up over the Chinese.

We have seen how Russian "excersises" are pretty much a sham and does not prepare its forces for real war. Even if the Chinese doctrine does not follow the Russian examples, then it will be years before Chinese fleet excersises bring them up to speed.

bt

Not threatened much by the Iraqi Navy, the danger they presented via mainly missile boats in 1991, though USN strike aircraft and RN Lynx helicopters with Sea Skua missiles dealt with them in short order.
The 1991 war also had the first SAM vs ASM engagement, HMS Gloucester’s Sea Dart on a Chinese made Silkworm fired from shore, in the 31 years since obviously technology has moved on.

But I agree, we have seen since February what not doing anything like the standard NATO annual flying hours, a lack of large scale and frequent training, usually with allied nations, can blunt what appears formidable on paper.

China is new to the Carrier game, to quote that bloody stupid film what’s needed is ‘a particular set of skills’.

The 1982 war proved one thing, the absolute potency in both direct effect and putting an enemy fleet out of the war, of the SSN.
A technology the US and UK are ahead in both technology and experience with China.
Hence the Australian change of direction, however clumsily carried out.

The Ukraine war has also showed me something about exercises beyond the shooting part.

Large scale excersise also allows you to work out logistics. And we have seen how logistics can turn the tide of a battle.

That is something the Chinese will need to practice across their whole fleet. Not just with a couple of carriers.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

The Ukraine war has also showed me something about exercises beyond the shooting part.

Large scale excersise also allows you to work out logistics. And we have seen how logistics can turn the tide of a battle.

That is something the Chinese will need to practice across their whole fleet. Not just with a couple of carriers.

bt

Logistics is the key, for example, an amphibious invasion of Taiwan would take a huge number of landing craft. If a 50 person landing craft is used, the first wave of 5,000 marines would take 100 craft, each added wave of 5,000 probably needs another 30 craft to cover a 30% loss. So getting 25,000 to shore the 1st day would gobble up 220 landing craft to execute the 1st day. These in turn would need 20 transports to get 25,000 to shore. Day 2 would be better but losses would consume 150 added landing craft and a 2nd batch of 20 transports. Likely 60 transports and like 500 landing craft to get 5K troops ashore each day.

Supplies to the shore is minimal the 1st day, growing fast each day. How to transport all the men and equipment across the 100 mile Strait, then bring to shore would be a huge challenge. Each landing invasion in WWII really taxed the system, with huge lessons learned from every one. After several dozen landings they started to get the things to run smoothly.

It is hard to know how good missile systems are until they have been tested in war, missile defenses even more, how many fails has the US had. A fighter pilot with 100 sorties in battle is far better than he was after 5.

How will the engines on the fighters perform under the stress of battle, lots of lessons learned there. Back to the carrier example, how many Chinese pilots have landed a damaged plane onto a carrier in storms at night - zero. How many pilots would get another chance to do this, few!

I couldn't find the propulsion specs on this carrier, is it unknown ? I see turbines, boilers, but also electric. For EMALS don't you need tons of electricity ?

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist (and spy satellites neither). During the Cold war nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes were developed, now hypersonic missiles are coming online, I wonder what a navy can really do in an all out war, aside from submarines.

Russia might not be the best example, but they lost several ships including a flagship, against a country with no navy and no control of its airspace.

My thinking also applies to China, and the invasion of Taiwan in particular. I would expect Taiwan to have bought and built thousands upon thousands of missiles to shoot at any invading navy and air force.

Are there missile tactics developed to defeat point defense, for example shooting several missiles simultaneously at a ship, some sea skimming, some coming from the top ? I would guess yes.

Aesma wrote:

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945,

Carriers were useful during the Viernam war and would be usefull again if China gets in a tit for tat with Vietnam again.

Unless of course if the US decides to arm Vietnam like it is doing in Ukraine.

bt

Aesma wrote:

Are there missile tactics developed to defeat point defense, for example shooting several missiles simultaneously at a ship, some sea skimming, some coming from the top ? I would guess yes.

Swarms and saturation attack has been a staple of missile research since '45. Modern ship based air defence (e. g. Aegis) should be able to engage multiple targets semi-simultaneously but obviously there's still a limit.

Conversely, modern missile technology should enable enroute coordination to hit a designated target simultaneously from multiple angles, even if they were ripple fired from one or more launching systems. For missiles, though, I'm not aware of any operational system. Either just research / prototypes or black projects.

Aesma wrote:

I
I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist.

You could consider kamikazes as missiles.

Aesma wrote:

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist (and spy satellites neither). During the Cold war nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes were developed, now hypersonic missiles are coming online, I wonder what a navy can really do in an all out war, aside from submarines.

Well, the difference here is that the US has over 80 years of operational experience in carrier warfare and continues to evolve its tactics, whereas China is the new boy in the game. With a mixed fleet of carriers, the logistics is going to be a burden for quite a few years to the Chinese its going to take 10-15 years to become proficient in carrier tactics. I am not saying the Chinese cannot hurt the Americans, but I still believe the advantage is with the USN

In regards to satellites this is going to come down to the level of intensity of the campaign, all the major players have ASAT capability from missiles to emerging ground base laser to blind. Once in the blind for either side this is where the US will have the advantage.

But I do agree the role of the submarine will be of crucial importance just as in WWII for the Germans in nearly chocking the UK to the USN against the IJN, which is why the RAN place utmost importance on SSN and the race to build continually.

Whist the Chinese have shown that they can build faster in the current environment that is coming down to policy of the CCP to match the USN in numbers. What we haven’t seen is the ability to repair refit and maintain such a large fleet over the years even the US struggles in this area as it is huge and more complex than churning them out of a production line.

bikerthai wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945,

Carriers were useful during the Viernam war and would be usefull again if China gets in a tit for tat with Vietnam again.

Unless of course if the US decides to arm Vietnam like it is doing in Ukraine.

bt

In the South China Sea with massive Chinese air support and missile batteries plus small sneaky subs in fairly shallow waters a carrier with out a liability wouldn't it?`

A101 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist (and spy satellites neither). During the Cold war nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes were developed, now hypersonic missiles are coming online, I wonder what a navy can really do in an all out war, aside from submarines.

Well, the difference here is that the US has over 80 years of operational experience in carrier warfare and continues to evolve its tactics, whereas China is the new boy in the game. With a mixed fleet of carriers, the logistics is going to be a burden for quite a few years to the Chinese its going to take 10-15 years to become proficient in carrier tactics. I am not saying the Chinese cannot hurt the Americans, but I still believe the advantage is with the USN

In regards to satellites this is going to come down to the level of intensity of the campaign, all the major players have ASAT capability from missiles to emerging ground base laser to blind. Once in the blind for either side this is where the US will have the advantage.

But I do agree the role of the submarine will be of crucial importance just as in WWII for the Germans in nearly chocking the UK to the USN against the IJN, which is why the RAN place utmost importance on SSN and the race to build continually.

Whist the Chinese have shown that they can build faster in the current environment that is coming down to policy of the CCP to match the USN in numbers. What we haven’t seen is the ability to repair refit and maintain such a large fleet over the years even the US struggles in this area as it is huge and more complex than churning them out of a production line.

Over 80 year with no fleet on fleet confrontations, it's easy to bomb Middle Eastern nations who can't defend themselves; as the Russians have found out fighting someone on near technical parity is a different ballgame. Who are you to say the Chinese don't have the ability to get up to speed quickly and efficiently? You have no idea what they are capable off all you can do is make assumptions.

The Chinese have one of the largest vessel refit and repair operations in the world, to say they can't maintain there fleet is your anti Chinese bias showing. IMO the US suffers because they have let their shipbuilding industry run down, they don't have enough people in the industry.

Aesma wrote:

I couldn't find the propulsion specs on this carrier, is it unknown ? I see turbines, boilers, but also electric. For EMALS don't you need tons of electricity ?

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist (and spy satellites neither). During the Cold war nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes were developed, now hypersonic missiles are coming online, I wonder what a navy can really do in an all out war, aside from submarines.

Russia might not be the best example, but they lost several ships including a flagship, against a country with no navy and no control of its airspace.

My thinking also applies to China, and the invasion of Taiwan in particular. I would expect Taiwan to have bought and built thousands upon thousands of missiles to shoot at any invading navy and air force.

Are there missile tactics developed to defeat point defense, for example shooting several missiles simultaneously at a ship, some sea skimming, some coming from the top ? I would guess yes.

It’s diesel meaning using those EMALS then the carrier will replenishments at sea will be happening every day and for all the stated wonders of the Chinese shipbuilding they have a small fleet of auxiliaries.
Dodgy design decision number one? That’s already restricted it’s range.
I know some refuse to consider anything but CATOBAR as carrier aviation (not invented here syndrome?) but it’s not 80 since peer on near peer (the latter had a large nearby Air Force), it’s 40 years.

I know some get all excited when news and better yet a periscope picture of a US carrier from a RAN, or a leased Swedish or whoever’s submarine in an exercise.
That’s the operative word, exercise, the Swedish sub was leased by the USN for this purpose, to test against threats like that.
Which does not sound like a service sure they will only ever be ‘bombing Mid East nations who cannot fire back’.
They are training heavily for peer on peer, are their likely opponents? We know one has poorly trained and motivated crews, including naval ones.

In Ukraine we are seeing, this includes ship launched missiles, a failure rate of some 40%, this includes more modern missiles, that’s a number last associated with early generation AAM’s in the 60’s,
And what surrounds a US carrier group? A bunch of AD oriented Destroyers with large missile loads and all vessels with shorter ranged SAMs and CIWS.
As well as a fleet of ASW choppers.
There is a reason why the RN, in the last few months, announced the fitting of extra SeaCeptor SAM’s, allowing standardization on the Aster 30, while the ships are also upgraded with a BMD capability.

Of course you could also write to the defence ministries and Navies of the US, France, UK, Italy, China, Japan and tell them they are wrong about carriers because of........stuff?
(I would remind that tanks have been written off as out of date, almost since their first use, a better analogy I know is the Battleship, however they were range limited by their guns which had limits, against ships the range of their fire control, in other words, the horizon, two things that carriers competently operated don’t suffer from).

The Battle of Midway and other pacific war engagements were not the only ones, many in particular other areas like the Mediterranean had carriers in range of large land based air forces.
In 1991 the Coalition faced, on paper at least, a very large and powerful Air Force, with recent combat experience, backed up by large SAM networks, US carrier aviation was there on day one along with the land based aircraft and Tomahawks.
Turns out the other side had the training doctrine of one of the current assumed major threats.
There seems to be a correlation between modern autocratic regimes with big power ambitions being poor on the very things the USN and NATO excel in, a lot of varied training including in not only all arms but multi national operations.

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist (and spy satellites neither). During the Cold war nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes were developed, now hypersonic missiles are coming online, I wonder what a navy can really do in an all out war, aside from submarines.

Well, the difference here is that the US has over 80 years of operational experience in carrier warfare and continues to evolve its tactics, whereas China is the new boy in the game. With a mixed fleet of carriers, the logistics is going to be a burden for quite a few years to the Chinese its going to take 10-15 years to become proficient in carrier tactics. I am not saying the Chinese cannot hurt the Americans, but I still believe the advantage is with the USN
In regards to satellites this is going to come down to the level of intensity of the campaign, all the major players have ASAT capability from missiles to emerging ground base laser to blind. Once in the blind for either side this is where the US will have the advantage.
But I do agree the role of the submarine will be of crucial importance just as in WWII for the Germans in nearly chocking the UK to the USN against the IJN, which is why the RAN place utmost importance on SSN and the race to build continually.
Whist the Chinese have shown that they can build faster in the current environment that is coming down to policy of the CCP to match the USN in numbers. What we haven’t seen is the ability to repair refit and maintain such a large fleet over the years even the US struggles in this area as it is huge and more complex than churning them out of a production line.

Over 80 year with no fleet on fleet confrontations, it's easy to bomb Middle Eastern nations who can't defend themselves; as the Russians have found out fighting someone on near technical parity is a different ballgame. Who are you to say the Chinese don't have the ability to get up to speed quickly and efficiently? You have no idea what they are capable off all you can do is make assumptions.

LOL; you are making assumptions yourself on the collective training that the USN does across the maritime spectrum and the ability of the Chinese.

I have acknowledged that China is out performing building new ships due to the CCP policy on shipbuilding. Because the PLAN fleet is relatively young

I don’t think anyone in their right mind would use the Russian example on how the US will fight and support a force in the field against a peer-on-peer confrontation. The logistics comparison between the RF and the US is not comparable you can see how vast the log train is in how they brought in equipment over the last 50 years of operations across the globe, as I said the Chinese are no where near that level of C&C in the short term it takes years to build that level of competence.

Kiwirob wrote:

The Chinese have one of the largest vessel refit and repair operations in the world, to say they can't maintain there fleet is your anti Chinese bias showing. IMO the US suffers because they have let their shipbuilding industry run down, they don't have enough people in the industry.

I have acknowledged that China is outperforming the US in building new ships due to the CCP policy on shipbuilding. I didn’t say they cannot maintain their fleet; I am questioning their capacity to do so at a scale of the new fleet, due to fact the fleet is quite young I don’t believe they have ability to generate the kind of repair capacity that the US Navy has currently at the moment. Shipbuilding to ship repair across such an large expanded fleet is different to keeping them combat ready as the fleet ages.

GDB wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I couldn't find the propulsion specs on this carrier, is it unknown ? I see turbines, boilers, but also electric. For EMALS don't you need tons of electricity ?

I kind of agree with Kiwi on the fact aircraft carriers and ships in general haven't proven themselves in a battle of equals since 1945, and back then missiles didn't exist (and spy satellites neither). During the Cold war nuclear tipped missiles and torpedoes were developed, now hypersonic missiles are coming online, I wonder what a navy can really do in an all out war, aside from submarines.

Russia might not be the best example, but they lost several ships including a flagship, against a country with no navy and no control of its airspace.

My thinking also applies to China, and the invasion of Taiwan in particular. I would expect Taiwan to have bought and built thousands upon thousands of missiles to shoot at any invading navy and air force.

Are there missile tactics developed to defeat point defense, for example shooting several missiles simultaneously at a ship, some sea skimming, some coming from the top ? I would guess yes.

It’s diesel meaning using those EMALS then the carrier will replenishments at sea will be happening every day and for all the stated wonders of the Chinese shipbuilding they have a small fleet of auxiliaries.
Dodgy design decision number one? That’s already restricted it’s range.
I know some refuse to consider anything but CATOBAR as carrier aviation (not invented here syndrome?) but it’s not 80 since peer on near peer (the latter had a large nearby Air Force), it’s 40 years.

I know some get all excited when news and better yet a periscope picture of a US carrier from a RAN, or a leased Swedish or whoever’s submarine in an exercise.
That’s the operative word, exercise, the Swedish sub was leased by the USN for this purpose, to test against threats like that.
Which does not sound like a service sure they will only ever be ‘bombing Mid East nations who cannot fire back’.
They are training heavily for peer on peer, are their likely opponents? We know one has poorly trained and motivated crews, including naval ones.

In Ukraine we are seeing, this includes ship launched missiles, a failure rate of some 40%, this includes more modern missiles, that’s a number last associated with early generation AAM’s in the 60’s,
And what surrounds a US carrier group? A bunch of AD oriented Destroyers with large missile loads and all vessels with shorter ranged SAMs and CIWS.
As well as a fleet of ASW choppers.
There is a reason why the RN, in the last few months, announced the fitting of extra SeaCeptor SAM’s, allowing standardization on the Aster 30, while the ships are also upgraded with a BMD capability.

Of course you could also write to the defence ministries and Navies of the US, France, UK, Italy, China, Japan and tell them they are wrong about carriers because of........stuff?
(I would remind that tanks have been written off as out of date, almost since their first use, a better analogy I know is the Battleship, however they were range limited by their guns which had limits, against ships the range of their fire control, in other words, the horizon, two things that carriers competently operated don’t suffer from).

The Battle of Midway and other pacific war engagements were not the only ones, many in particular other areas like the Mediterranean had carriers in range of large land based air forces.
In 1991 the Coalition faced, on paper at least, a very large and powerful Air Force, with recent combat experience, backed up by large SAM networks, US carrier aviation was there on day one along with the land based aircraft and Tomahawks.
Turns out the other side had the training doctrine of one of the current assumed major threats.
There seems to be a correlation between modern autocratic regimes with big power ambitions being poor on the very things the USN and NATO excel in, a lot of varied training including in not only all arms but multi national operations.

An excellent summary on why defence forces cost so much they........ train hard they play hard to fight hard

Kiwirob wrote:

In the South China Sea with massive Chinese air support and missile batteries plus small sneaky subs in fairly shallow waters a carrier with out a liability wouldn't it?`

About 1000 km from Hainan to the Spratly. That's pretty far for air and missile support.

Again I am not talking about confrontation with the US and its allies.

The Chinese carrier does have usefulness when dealing with countries like Vietnam and the few others in the area who do not have the US as an ally.

by

Those Chinese shipyards are all on strike lists already. It will only take a few cruise missiles to sink dry-docks or put graving docks out of service.

But I'm not sure PRC will need repair facilities as the Chinese Navy (IMO) will not last long if it goes out to sea. Allied submarines have decades of experience that the PRC does not have and it will be the deciding factor. The PRC would need to damage or destroy as many a possible at the onset of hostilities. Hey - we've seen that before.

And shed a tear for the thousands of Chinese fishing boats that will be gunnery practice - as was the case with the Japanese fishing fleet during WWII.

N14AZ wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Stupid question: what is the purpose of these light steel halls installed on deck?

My guess is environmental protection for the incomplete EMALS system. Keeps workers nice and dry while they finish installing the system.

Thank you for your feedback.

Nicoeddf wrote:

I have been. At least a dozen times. You are mistaken.

bikerthai wrote:

I will defer to your experience. Did you travel much beyond the big metro area?

bt

Before Covid I used to travel all over China, from South China close to Vietnam to North China close to the Russian border. I use German long distance trains almost on a daily basis. I SWEAR TO YOU, THEIR RAILWAY SYSTEM WORKS WAY BETTER THAN OUR OLD ONE DOES.

Ok, it’s literally brand new whereas ours is old. But right now their system is superior.

The newer lines in China are superior but the older trains are showing their age, moreso than the ones in Europe of the same age. The Beijing-Tianjin railway feels old. The Shanghai Maglev is so dilapidated that I'm not sure I would even want to take it anymore.

A101 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well, the difference here is that the US has over 80 years of operational experience in carrier warfare and continues to evolve its tactics, whereas China is the new boy in the game. With a mixed fleet of carriers, the logistics is going to be a burden for quite a few years to the Chinese its going to take 10-15 years to become proficient in carrier tactics. I am not saying the Chinese cannot hurt the Americans, but I still believe the advantage is with the USN
In regards to satellites this is going to come down to the level of intensity of the campaign, all the major players have ASAT capability from missiles to emerging ground base laser to blind. Once in the blind for either side this is where the US will have the advantage.
But I do agree the role of the submarine will be of crucial importance just as in WWII for the Germans in nearly chocking the UK to the USN against the IJN, which is why the RAN place utmost importance on SSN and the race to build continually.
Whist the Chinese have shown that they can build faster in the current environment that is coming down to policy of the CCP to match the USN in numbers. What we haven’t seen is the ability to repair refit and maintain such a large fleet over the years even the US struggles in this area as it is huge and more complex than churning them out of a production line.

Over 80 year with no fleet on fleet confrontations, it's easy to bomb Middle Eastern nations who can't defend themselves; as the Russians have found out fighting someone on near technical parity is a different ballgame. Who are you to say the Chinese don't have the ability to get up to speed quickly and efficiently? You have no idea what they are capable off all you can do is make assumptions.

LOL; you are making assumptions yourself on the collective training that the USN does across the maritime spectrum and the ability of the Chinese.

I have acknowledged that China is out performing building new ships due to the CCP policy on shipbuilding. Because the PLAN fleet is relatively young

I don’t think anyone in their right mind would use the Russian example on how the US will fight and support a force in the field against a peer-on-peer confrontation. The logistics comparison between the RF and the US is not comparable you can see how vast the log train is in how they brought in equipment over the last 50 years of operations across the globe, as I said the Chinese are no where near that level of C&C in the short term it takes years to build that level of competence.

Kiwirob wrote:

The Chinese have one of the largest vessel refit and repair operations in the world, to say they can't maintain there fleet is your anti Chinese bias showing. IMO the US suffers because they have let their shipbuilding industry run down, they don't have enough people in the industry.

I have acknowledged that China is outperforming the US in building new ships due to the CCP policy on shipbuilding. I didn’t say they cannot maintain their fleet; I am questioning their capacity to do so at a scale of the new fleet, due to fact the fleet is quite young I don’t believe they have ability to generate the kind of repair capacity that the US Navy has currently at the moment. Shipbuilding to ship repair across such an large expanded fleet is different to keeping them combat ready as the fleet ages.

Thank you mast for acknowledging my post, that makes me very proud.

ShanghaiNoon wrote:

The newer lines in China are superior but the older trains are showing their age, moreso than the ones in Europe of the same age. The Beijing-Tianjin railway feels old. The Shanghai Maglev is so dilapidated that I'm not sure I would even want to take it anymore.

I've seen a youtube video about this, basically China spent unlimited money to build the network, whether there was a real need or not, and now the train companies are losing humoungous amounts of money each year. Not helped with China being in almost continuous lockdown of course.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war?

Their relations "at an all-time high (with Russia) " and (China) reaffirmed their commitment to "consistently deepen the comprehensive partnership." with the Russia (CNN). So if Russia isn't the enemy, who is?

One of the critical uses of a Carrier Battle Group is to take the war (or threat of) to the enemies homeland. It's what the USN has done since the end of WWII. Even the Soviet's didn't build carriers.

The UK and France have carriers but are not (as far as I know) "planning on going to war". We are told the new UK ones are to "project power" - whatever that means.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

We are told the new UK ones are to "project power" - whatever that means.

They need to be able to defend the Falklands again or follow the US into future wars.

Seriously though, power project north to help defend Norway, and soon, Finland.
bt

JerseyFlyer wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war?

Their relations "at an all-time high (with Russia) " and (China) reaffirmed their commitment to "consistently deepen the comprehensive partnership." with the Russia (CNN). So if Russia isn't the enemy, who is?

One of the critical uses of a Carrier Battle Group is to take the war (or threat of) to the enemies homeland. It's what the USN has done since the end of WWII. Even the Soviet's didn't build carriers.

The UK and France have carriers but are not (as far as I know) "planning on going to war". We are told the new UK ones are to "project power" - whatever that means.

You "project power" so that you hopefully don't have to go to war. Countries perceived as being weak get attacked, not those thought of as strong and able to defend themselves and hurt their attacker badly.

johns624 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Serious question - why does China need a fleet of aircraft carriers if they aren't planning on going to war?

Their relations "at an all-time high (with Russia) " and (China) reaffirmed their commitment to "consistently deepen the comprehensive partnership." with the Russia (CNN). So if Russia isn't the enemy, who is?

One of the critical uses of a Carrier Battle Group is to take the war (or threat of) to the enemies homeland. It's what the USN has done since the end of WWII. Even the Soviet's didn't build carriers.

The UK and France have carriers but are not (as far as I know) "planning on going to war". We are told the new UK ones are to "project power" - whatever that means.

You "project power" so that you hopefully don't have to go to war. Countries perceived as being weak get attacked, not those thought of as strong and able to defend themselves and hurt their attacker badly.

That's certainly the main one. You would be surprised, aside from those with desperate nationalism, how many people in the UK do not seem to remember that we live on an Island and what that means in terms of security, direct and economic.
Certainly PM Cameron when he tried to cancel them in 2010 seemed to not think it, also ditching MPA's without a replacement for a decade.
How much does our trade come by sea? Most of it.
(Something both the Imperial German Navy and the Kreigsmarine soon worked out, there was also a reason why the USSR went all in submarines and other ways to interdict maritime traffic, not until very and too late in the Cold War, trying to build also a large ocean going, power projecting Navy).

Also, bearing the security burden within NATO, something now more obvious than ever.
To that end, in a recent major exercise HMS Prince Of Wales had the command ship role, for a series of maritime and amphibious operation exercises. Pics of it doing this get the usual 'why aren't the decks full of jet fighters?' from the usual suspects.
Missing the point, they can carry not only the F-35B but any helicopter in the NATO inventory.
Which brings us to the second major role, a large Commando Carrier, though with room to do that and still have a small flight of F-35B's, or just more more AH-64's and now they are getting air to surface weapons, Lynx Wildcats, depending on the situation.

Thirdly, remember what US carriers in the region did after the 2004 Tsunami, they flew off their combat aircraft, loaded on up supplies, more choppers and provided disaster relief, which is the third stated role.

The MoD define the carriers as the UK's strategic conventional deterrent.

40 years ago, another government thought the brand new ASW carriers, with a limited Harrier/power projection capability, were not needed, hence the sale in Jan 1982 of HMS Invincible to the RAN.
Look what happened next.
That is most unlikely to happen again in that part of the world but it seemed to come unexpectedly (not totally as recent releases of government papers after the infamous 1981 Defence Review show. They knew the risk down there and did fuck all, leaving a tiny band of Royal Marines with only light weapons).