OT: China's new carrier

[simonmark6]

Mind you, my ancestors were saying that about this time in the last century...

[95th Rifleman]

Mind you, my ancestors were saying that about this time in the last century...

That's a very good point.

Look at the Japanese, they went from nothing to a major, modern fleet in a relatively short time. The Russians got knocked for six by that little surprise.

[adimar]

But I dont see how any other navy or even any other alliance of navies could actually best the USN. Inflict terrible losses - maybe. But win the war at sea? I dont see it in a hundred years.

A relevant comparison might be Tirpitz' Risk theory. Tirpitz was a pre-WW1 German naval captain who suggested that in-order to match Great Britain's power Germany didn't have to invest in a bigger/more powerful navy. All German had to do was to create a navy big enough so that the cost of conflict between the navies would cripple the British navy. Such a parity results in a situation where even if Britain wins the war between the navies, the damage done to it's navy would severely degrade it's power projection capabilities to the point where it would risk the empire.
I think the similarities are obvious.

Adi

[RN7]

A relevant comparison might be Tirpitz' Risk theory. Tirpitz was a pre-WW1 German naval captain who suggested that in-order to match Great Britain's power Germany didn't have to invest in a bigger/more powerful navy. All German had to do was to create a navy big enough so that the cost of conflict between the navies would cripple the British navy. Such a parity results in a situation where even if Britain wins the war between the navies, the damage done to it's navy would severely degrade it's power projection capabilities to the point where it would risk the empire.
I think the similarities are obvious.

Adi

A good analogy, certainly the naval expansion of China vs America bares some similarities with the position of Germany vs Britain a hundred years or more ago, and China as a land power like Germany competing with a naval power like America and Britain is worth noting.

However the major draw back would be the level of military technology in both cases. Germany never achieved naval parity with Britain before or during WW1, with its fleet being at best 60% the size of the Royal Navy as British naval ship building capacity was too great for them to match. After Jutland the German High seas fleet never bothered to take on the Royal Navy again. But German naval technology was certainly able to match Britain's, and its dreadnought fleet was arguably more advanced with better machinery, gun sights etc. China on the other hand is not any where near challenging American naval technology. Despite the propaganda and knee jerk reports of its growing naval power, China can't build an aircraft carrier on its own despite 30 years of trying, and its nuclear submarine programme is reliant on Russian assistance.

They are trying however, and I think Peking is happy to embark on a dissemination policy about its naval/military/strategic projects to worry its neighbours in Asia and keep America on its toes. I bet the Pentagon just loves all of this as it justifies its defence spending and funding for new projects.

[Raellus]

The PRC has moved their former Russian Kiev-class carrier from the status of floating casino to major naval combatant (like nobody saw that one coming).

The Varyag is not a Kiev class carrier. It is Admiral Kuznetsov class. There's a big difference. The Kiev had a much smaller flight deck and could fly only YAK-38 VTOL aircraft- a very limited airframe even at the time it was first introduced. The YAK-38's replacement, the YAK-131, never really saw the light of day. The Admiral Kutzenov, on the other hand, has a full-length flight deck, not that much shorter than that of a Nimitz class CVN, and can fly the SU-27 naval variant(s), a much more capable multi-mission aircraft.

[RN7]

Chinese Aircraft Carriers

HMAS Melbourne
British built light aircraft carrier, demilitarised and sold by Australia to China in 1985. Studied by Chinese naval architects and engineers, flight deck reportedly removed or reproduced for the secret training of Chinese Navy pilots in carrier flight operations. Carrier was rumored to have not been broken up until 2002.

Kiev & Minsk
Soviet built hybrid aircraft carrier/missile cruiser. Kiev demilitarised in 1993 and sold to China in 1996 as a theme parked ship. Minsk demilitarised in 1993 and sold to South Korea in 1995, and later sold on to China as a theme parked ship. Status of both ships are unknown other than being used as museum attractions, but both ships are likely to have been intensively studied by Chinese naval engineers but are not likely to be ever be operational again.

Varyag
Soviet built sister of Russian Kuznetsov. Construction of ship stopped in Ukraine 1992 when 70% complete, and ship sold in 1998 to China. Considered highly likely that China is preparing the Varyag (Renamed Shi Lang) for commission as China,c,"s first aircraft carrier. Extensive modification of ship has been observed since 2006, and is reportedly currently been fitted out with sensors, radars and defensive weapons at Dalian, and the ship has been observed beginning to run power. Undetermined Russian assistance is likely. Su-33 carrier based fighters and Ka-31 early warning helicopters have been sought or bought from Russia, while the J-15 carrier based fighter which is considered a Chinese knock off of the Su-33 is being developed by China. A concrete land based flight deck has been built for training carrier pilots while China has approached the Brazilian navy for the use of its aircraft carrier for training.

Future Chinese Carriers
Reportedly China plans to start building two Type 089 (Shi Lang Class) carriers by 2015, probably based upon the Varyag design, and another two nuclear powered carrier in 2020.

Good site about the Varyag.

http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/varyagtransform.htm

Chinese Nuclear Submarines

Type 091 Class (1974-Present)
Numbers: 5 built, 3 still in service
Tonnage: 4,500-5,500
Speed: 25kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, C-802 A/S missile, mines

Type 092 Class (1981-Present)
Numbers: 2 built, 1 still in service
Tonnage: 6,500-7,000
Speed: 22kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, 12x JL-1A SLBMs

Type 093 Class (2002-Present)
Numbers: 2 built, 6-8 planned
Tonnage: 6,000-7,000
Speed: 35kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, C-803 A/S missile, mines

Type 094 Class (2010-Present) (Believed to have incorporated Russian technology)
Numbers: 2 building, 5 planned
Tonnage: 8,000-9,000
Speed: 22kts submerged
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, 12x JL-2SLBMs (16-24 on Type 2/3)

Type 095 Class (2015)
Numbers: 5 planned
Tonnage: Unknown
Speed: Unknown
Armament: 6x 533mm torpedo tubes, HY-5 A/S missile, mines

Chinese Submarine Launched Missiles

C-802 Anti-ship missile (Range: 180km)
C-803 Anti-ship missile (Range: 200km)
HY-5 Anti-ship missile (Range: 300-500km)
JL-1A SLBM (Range: 2,500km, 200-300kt)
JL-2 SLBM (Range: 8,600km, 250kt single or MIRV (up to 10 MIRV on Mod II variant))

[95th Rifleman]

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

All this talk of China being behind in tech is a bit pointless. If China decided to build up properly they could put out huge numbers of, admittedly inferior, shps and aircraft and swamp American defenses. For the moment they are cntent to just exchange sabre rattles.

[adimar]

i would of thought that the Vietnam war, Iraq and Afghanistan would of taught people that a technological advantage does not equate to military success.

Don't confuse land & blue water warfare. The major difference between the two is that you can't really hide is open ocean warfare. At least you can't hide without a major technological edge. If you want to compare land and sea than change the land terrain to a flat rocky plain where a guerrilla force can't strike & vanish.
Since the last couple of wars were anti insurgent actions people tend to forget just how powerful of an edge is given by technology where there simply aren't any civilians to hide behind.

These are my 1.99 cents
Adi

[95th Rifleman]

people tend to forget just how powerful of an edge is given by technology where there simply aren't any civilians to hide behind.

This kind of thinking is daft, arrogant and the reason America lost Vietnam and why Russia lost in Afghanistan.

"We didn't lose because our tactics where out-dated, our technology was developed for an entirely different battlefield and our logistics are strecthed to breaking point. No we lost because we are the good guys and play by the rules and the other guy hides behind civvies, we couldn't possibly lose if they played fair."

Bit of a reality check, the Russians didn't care how many civilians the taliban hid behind, they blew them all up and let God do the counting and the Russians STILL lost.

people refuse to actualy learn the lessons of history, they just make up excuses and keep fighting the last war till they get blown to hell and are forced (like the Germans post-WW1) to re-write the rulebook.

Technology doesn't mean crap against numbers, even in blue water navies. WW1 era bi-planes where responsible for sinking one of the most advanced and modern warships built in WW2 (the Bismark). America won WW2 because they could put 6 carriers to sea for every one the Japanese had. It's to be remembered that Japan had one of the most modern fleets at sea during the first half of WW2.

Technology can only get you so far, eventualy the nmbers game decides the outcome. The bigger the scale, the more powerful numbers become. Ony in very small actions does quality overcome quantity, it's the reason spec ops forces operate in small teams.

[dragoon500ly]

The Varyag is not a Kiev class carrier. It is Admiral Kuznetsov class. There's a big difference. The Kiev had a much smaller flight deck and could fly only YAK-38 VTOL aircraft- a very limited airframe even at the time it was first introduced. The YAK-38's replacement, the YAK-131, never really saw the light of day. The Admiral Kutzenov, on the other hand, has a full-length flight deck, not that much shorter than that of a Nimitz class CVN, and can fly the SU-27 naval variant(s), a much more capable multi-mission aircraft.

Sorry, I should have made listed all of the news report, which claimed that the PRC was activating the floating Kiev-class casino as well as the Varyag. What can I say, cold beer and BBQ.....

[ShadoWarrior]

It's to be remembered that Japan had one of the most modern fleets at sea during the first half of WW2.

This would be the same modern Japanese fleet that lacked fire direction control radar, which all other major naval powers possessed? Or shipboard air search radars. Omissions that were to prove costly in more than one battle.

[Legbreaker]

I believe it may be worth pointing out that the US economy is, well, basically in the toilet. Unless something BIG happens soon, the US may not be able to maintain the navy they have now, let alone build replacement ships in 20 years.
Meanwhile, China seems to be booming. 20 years from now they may well have the money, the technology and skills to build a seriously decent fleet.
Maybe neither of those things will happen, but maybe they will. Better to worry about the possibility now and work out some contingencies than place head in sand and hope.

This would be the same modern Japanese fleet that lacked fire direction control radar, which all other major naval powers possessed? Or shipboard air search radars. Omissions that were to prove costly in more than one battle.

Err, radar was a bit of a rarity in the early years of the war and we know from Pearl Harbour that the US certainly didn't take it seriously until after they had their backsides well and truly spanked.

[ShadoWarrior]

Err, radar was a bit of a rarity in the early years of the war and we know from Pearl Harbour that the US certainly didn't take it seriously until after they had their backsides well and truly spanked.

The US took radar seriously. What most naval officers didn't take seriously was the idea of a Japanese attack on Hawaii.

British, American, and German warships in the early years of the war did have radar. Not very good ones, but they did have them.

[Legbreaker]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.htm

It would seem to me that before 1942, radar of any type was very rare in US service and was only installed on most ships in response to the events of December 1941.
It's also worth noting that WWII did not start in December 1941 - for most of the world it was several years earlier when the Germans were annexing their neighbours. For Japan's neighbours it was even earlier, almost a generation in China's case (Japan's invasion of Manchuria in September 1931).
As the Pacific theatre after the fall of Singapore was mainly fought by the US (but not forgetting many smaller nations such as Australia and New Zealand), it seems appropriate to leave out radars possessed by countries not directly involved in the region when discussing Japanese naval technology.

Something else worth pointing out is that the US had access to British and other allied nations research into radars and fire control. The Japanese were essentially on their own. Should the Japanese have had similar advances in technology available to them, the war at sea may have been much more bloody (as if the actual number of deaths weren't enough).

[95th Rifleman]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Radar_WWII.htm
It would seem to me that before 1942, radar of any type was very rare in US service and was only installed on most ships in response to the events of December 1941.
It's also worth noting that WWII did not start in December 1941 - for most of the world it was several years earlier when the Germans were annexing their neighbours. For Japan's neighbours it was even earlier, almost a generation in China's case (Japan's invasion of Manchuria in September 1931).
As the Pacific theatre after the fall of Singapore was mainly fought by the US (but not forgetting many smaller nations such as Australia and New Zealand), it seems appropriate to leave out radars possessed by countries not directly involved in the region when discussing Japanese naval technology.

Something else worth pointing out is that the US had access to British and other allied nations research into radars and fire control. The Japanese were essentially on their own. Should the Japanese have had similar advances in technology available to them, the war at sea may have been much more bloody (as if the actual number of deaths weren't enough).

People do tend to forget that WW2 started before America got into it. America had to play catch-up and it was only America's vast industrial base and relatively untouched economy that allowed it to do so. It also helped that Japan wiped out almost all the big gun battleships and forced America to adapt and in so doing master carrier warfare. Had the japanese sent their final wave and destroyed the US pacific carriers then the war would of had a much different outcome.

In the end America won WW2 with numbers, not quality. In Europe they simply sent in so many Shermans at the wehrmacht till the Germans simply ran out of resources. it was the same in the pacific, the Americans mass-produced simple, effective designs for destroyers and carriers and simply swamped the Japanese who could not replace losses.

In the 21st century it is America who has the superior tech but numericly inferior forces and the economic climate is making that situation worse every year. At the risk of coming across as anti-American, there has been an arrogant, self-imposed blindness on the part of the USA over the past few decades, especialy after the fall of communism. Many in America consider that they where victorious in the cold war and that it validates their doctrine. The truth is the Russians ran out of money before America did, the cold war crippled them economicly. America risks going into a second cold war with China and this time it will be America that loses out.

The cold truth is that America has become over-reliant on it's military technology and has become dangerously arrogant, underestimating her potential rivals. My own country made this mistake and we went from having the world's most powerful naval empire to the state we find ourselves in today.