Support NeoGAF

[SMT]

I thought they already had this because I saw one when they were surrounding Seppuku Islands.
My mistake.

 

[numble]

-- LOL. Some of you people would be shocked and amazed at how little tech the military has now or is fit for active service in the next decade given their budgets. But this magical thinking that the US military has all sorts of secret projects hidden away ready to enter mass production at a moments notice does give me, and probably anyone who has actually ever dealt or seen how procurement works, a hearty chuckle.

-- If the Navy actually had any faith in their missile countermeasures (real or imagined) there wouldn't be so much anguish and journal ink spilled on how to mitigate anti-access technologies like high-speed SSMs. Even a single Chinese carrier (and let's be honest here, it's just a testbed) adds a lot of complexity to any operational planning in that entire sphere of interest, and the cost/benefit is entirely in China's favor given the rapidly aging carrier fleet and the high likelyhood we won't be able to afford the replacements. Even the possibility of it being in an area of conflict forces all sorts of nasty (and expensive) compromises on the part of our own fleet.

Believe me when I say the Top Brass (no matter how many people believe otherwise) treat the Chinese military with complete indifference.

 

[SRG01]

Quite the opposite - Brits fully understood that Royal Navy is spread among vast area of oceans so their numerical advantage is only on paper against German navy concentrated in single area which pushed them into creation of first modern battleship Drednought.

Not to mention that the inter-war period resulted in a dramatic shift in Naval combat. The British bet on big ships, whereas many others bet on carrier groups.

Believe me when I say the Top Brass (no matter how many people believe otherwise) treat the Chinese military with complete indifference.

Wait, but these are two different people making different points?


????

 

[weekend_warrior]

-- LOL. Some of you people would be shocked and amazed at how little tech the military has now or is fit for active service in the next decade given their budgets. But this magical thinking that the US military has all sorts of secret projects hidden away ready to enter mass production at a moments notice does give me, and probably anyone who has actually ever dealt or seen how procurement works, a hearty chuckle.

-- If the Navy actually had any faith in their missile countermeasures (real or imagined) there wouldn't be so much anguish and journal ink spilled on how to mitigate anti-access technologies like high-speed SSMs. Even a single Chinese carrier (and let's be honest here, it's just a testbed) adds a lot of complexity to any operational planning in that entire sphere of interest, and the cost/benefit is entirely in China's favor given the rapidly aging carrier fleet and the high likelyhood we won't be able to afford the replacements. Even the possibility of it being in an area of conflict forces all sorts of nasty (and expensive) compromises on the part of our own fleet.

Rapidly aging? The US fleet has 6 Nimitz-class carriers built within the past 20 years. They're not exactly being out-classed.

 

[diamount]

To protect our oil platforms from pirates in south china sea.

I've never heard of carriers be used in anti-piracy warfare. Just doing regular patrols with smaller vessels usually deters pirates.

 

[Safe Bet]

Not to mention that the inter-war period resulted in a dramatic shift in Naval combat. The British bet on big ships, whereas many others bet on carrier groups.

Hard to blame Europe for failing to see the potential of Carrier Fleets considering it's long naval tradition.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Rapidly aging? The US fleet has 6 Nimitz-class carriers built within the past 20 years. They're not exactly being out-classed.

Not to mention it's hilarious how he assumes that the Black Projects the USAF and Navy keeps secret aren't worth shit.

It would take decades for the Chinese to match the US military and by the time it did get to that point, the US would likely would've put them in their place long before it happens.

 

[SmartBase]

...is why they're moving in this direction with the development of their navy.

 

[antonz]

...is why they're moving in this direction with the development of their navy.

Yep shits absurd. It would be like the US claiming the entire Caribbean, all the central and northern parts of south America waters
Going to be a very turbulent time in that region of the world. Suspect a lot of those countries are going to get fucked in the process

 

[numble]

Analysis of the take-off/landings in WSJ:
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/...r-style-what-first-takeoff-and-landing-means/

...
Once again, China has exceeded the expectations of many foreign observers regarding timelines for military capabilities development, though the tremendous publicity the event has received could limit the country’s ability to move with such speed in developing its aircraft carrier going forward.
...
In addition to the shooter gesture, American naval aviators with whom we spoke have noted familiar hardware and procedures akin to U.S. Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) in footage of the J-15 landing and take-off. The landing signals officer platform, optical landing system, effective non-skid flight deck, and color-specific uniforms are all strikingly similar to their U.S. and Russian equivalents.
...
So how to assess the significance of China’s latest military accomplishment? One U.S. Navy expert with whom we spoke described it as a mile run by a former non-runner who is now training to run a marathon in the future. The magnitude of the present accomplishment depends largely on whether it is measured against the zero miles run before, or the 26.2 miles that must be run in the future.
...
To support future carrier capabilities, China must now establish comprehensive support infrastructure that the U.S. military refers to as doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, and personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF). It must develop training, logistics, and maintenance pipelines. It must also develop operational infrastructure, including command and control. In all these areas, which involve primarily hardware and software, it can continue to emulate U.S. and Russian approaches in many respects.

Where China will truly have to develop its own approach is in developing a theory of operations: what its carriers will be used for, how many it will need, and the training and procedures to support such use. Here China may face more difficult challenges.

One obvious use of carriers is to enhance Chinese prestige by showing that Beijing has joined an exclusive international club. As soon as Liaoning’s air wing can be assembled, and operated with some degree of confidence, it will likely depart Chinese waters on a series of cruises to “show the flag” as a Great White Fleet of one.

A second major mission is likely to entail demonstrating, and if necessary using, capacity to pressure neighbors with which China has island and maritime disputes. Being able to use deck aviation to cover an amphibious assault on islands, rocks and reefs—e.g., in the South China Sea—offers Beijing the means to pressure its smaller rivals without confrontation escalating into a shooting war. This approach may be fraught with risk, however, not only politically but also operationally. Carriers are generally ineffective platforms for sea control fighting in confined waters given their extreme vulnerability to missiles and other means of attack. Even a far-less-capable military, such as that of Vietnam, has the ability to develop rudimentary “anti-access” capabilities.

Beyond the possible regional contingencies where Chinese leaders might see a carrier as a useful instrument of national power, there is the question of to what extent the Chinese aircraft carrier program will be governed by the country’s naval strategy, and to what extent the carrier’s existence may reshape Navy leaders’ policy outlook and perception of how many carriers it needs.

Although the ultimate number of aircraft carriers China will build remains uncertain, Chinese sources such as the Liaoning carrier’s deputy chief designer suggest the country seeks multiple carriers. There are relatively straightforward operational reasons behind seeking multiple vessels. For instance, keeping 1-2 carriers operationally ready means that the PLAN would likely need at least 3-4 vessels.
...
Carrier aviation is an inherently risky business. In “Top Gun,” Nick “Goose” Bradshaw dies in a training accident. In real life, the U.S. carrier program was forged in the crucible of wartime, when severe losses were not just accepted but expected. Planes and pilots were lost at an extreme rate, but the Navy gained invaluable experience in the process. High loss rates persisted well through the early Cold War years. Despite tremendous improvements, even today it is not uncommon for a plane, pilot or deck crew member to be lost.

Chinese deck aviation, by contrast, is being developed in a technologically-advanced peacetime environment that does not justify significant losses. While carriers have always been “high-value units” whose use has been predicated on acceptable risk, today’s aircraft are more expensive and pilots scarcer in relative terms, making losses much harder to tolerate. Beijing has started with a prestigious, flawless image, and wants to maintain it both abroad and perhaps especially at home. In fact, the very public interest and support that has helped to propel China’s aircraft carrier program may stymie it by making decision-makers extremely risk averse.

This poses a dilemma. Adopting a risk-averse flight posture and avoiding high-volume flight operations may minimize accidents, but it cannot prevent them entirely. Even under ideal conditions—highly-trained senior pilots, careful attention to fuel to compensate for lack of aerial refueling capabilities, and access to divert fields—accidents will occur and aircraft and pilots will be lost.

An American naval analyst has recounted to us a slow-motion tragedy in which a U.S. Navy aircraft caught an arrestor wire and ruptured it without slowing down sufficiently. Unable to stop in time, yet sapped of momentum sufficient to permit a hasty takeoff, the aircraft rolled off the deck in front of the carrier and was promptly run over, causing both aircraft and pilot to be lost. Even the most meticulous Chinese operations could not prevent such an accident.

On the other hand, always choosing “baby steps” over “pushing the envelope” will severely restrict the progress that Beijing can make. Chinese planners thus face important decisions in this regard. How they decide will be reflected in part in how aggressively Liaoning pursues operations at night, in all weather conditions, and in rough seas. Perhaps if public excitement eventually dies down, it will become easier to use the carrier.

 

[Slayer-33]

That ramp is awesome

 

[numble]

Commentary from US Air Force Colonel Brian Killough in Council on Foreign Relations:
http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2012/11/2...tions-putting-one-foot-in-front-of-the-other/

Colonel Brian Killough is the U.S. Air Force Military Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

On November 25, the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) announced that it had successfully landed a fighter on the aircraft carrier, Liaoning, and then taken off again. Furthermore, Beijing released video of the event to prove it. Perhaps the most surprising but little mentioned aspect of the demonstration was that the People’s Liberation Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF) chose to use the new J-15 fighter jet to demonstrate this capability. The J-15, a modified descendant of the Russian SU-33, has been in development since 2002 with a maiden flight in August 2009. The PLANAF could have gone the safer route and modified an older, lighter aircraft as a test-bed to develop procedures and steadily work its way toward a modern capability. Instead, it took considerable risk to do the test with a developmental fourth-generation fighter. Of note, the gear on the J-15 appear to be massive and capable of absorbing the high stress of carrier operations, and the aircraft engines clearly had no trouble achieving takeoff velocity on departure from the carrier (without any external stores—missiles, bombs or fuel tanks).

Of course, questions remain. Are all components of the aircraft robust and dependable enough for repeated operations in a very stressful, physically corrosive environment? The J-15 was clearly a test aircraft (note the telemetry decals on the aircraft) and, as far as we know, none of the J-15s are fully operational. Additionally, as one would expect, the aircraft was completely clean with no external stores onboard. Finally, taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier under ideal conditions (note the clear weather and calm seas) with no other shipboard aircraft or operations is a routine act for modern naval aviators. (For anyone interested in a historical perspective, the U.S. Navy has been operating jet aircraft off carriers since 1947, beginning with the McDonnell FH Phantom.)

So, what are the implications for this latest capability demonstration for the PLANAF? First, the massive amount of development and work required to field and operate a wing of these aircraft will take considerable time. That time will be shortened by the PLANAF’s ability to apply lessons learned by other navies but it will still have its share of obstacles to overcome. Ultimately, as I have noted before, putting a carrier to sea and putting expensive aircraft onboard makes it a very lucrative target that must also be accompanied by a supporting cast of ships in a carrier battle group. This group must be developed, fielded, and trained to operate as an effective force before it can be a credible extension of PRC national power.

If there is one thing we have come to know about the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of the twenty-first century, it is that the PRC is determined to attain and demonstrate capabilities that prove the PLA is a first-rate global military power. The PLA has demonstrated anti-satellite capability as well as produced and flown two prototype fifth-generation stealth aircraft. What the PLANAF has done this week is to continue putting one foot in front of the other on the path toward a credible global navy. It just seems to many that the steps were a little quicker than expected.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the policies or positions of the U.S. government or Department of Defense.

 

[shinobi602]

Believe me when I say the Top Brass (no matter how many people believe otherwise) treat the Chinese military with complete indifference.

Ok, we believe you.

 

[jerry113]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/world/asia/china-taiwan-strait-aircraft-carrier-trump.html

I remember the last time something happened in the Taiwan Strait - China shooting missiles overshooting Taiwan directly ahead of its first democratic elections in 1996 - , Bill Clinton sent two carrier groups into the Taiwan Strait as a show of support.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/world/asia/china-taiwan-strait-aircraft-carrier-trump.html

I remember the last time something happened in the Taiwan Strait - China shooting missiles overshooting Taiwan directly ahead of its first democratic elections in 1996 - , Bill Clinton sent two carrier groups into the Taiwan Strait as a show of support.

Oh this is bad.

 

[Disxo]

With trump so close to being in office, this is calculated, a show of force.

Keep doing it China

Spoiler

(Just because I consider your military hardware beautiful)

 

[ruxtpin]

I'm kinda disappointed they didn't take the ramp to its max level, just build big loop-de-loop on the end.

Edit. tf, this thread is 4 years old.

 

[MisterFalcon]

I just love the name People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force, everyone gets to be included in the name.

 

[NH Apache]

Their aircraft carrier is kinda a joke, bought from Bob's used car lot.

 

[dmann]

This will happen more often as China's navy continues to grow. The movement of Chinese ships thru the Taiwan Strait makes sense logistically for them otherwise the only other possible sea route will have the Chinese ships sail closer to the small Japanese islands to the east of Taiwan.

 

[ZOONAMI]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/world/asia/china-taiwan-strait-aircraft-carrier-trump.html

I remember the last time something happened in the Taiwan Strait - China shooting missiles overshooting Taiwan directly ahead of its first democratic elections in 1996 - , Bill Clinton sent two carrier groups into the Taiwan Strait as a show of support.

I'd say this could probs be a new thread.

 

[EGOMON]

US Navy response:

"lol"

China also commissioned a nuclear submarine with ballistic missiles that can hit any place in the USA from the safety of Chinese waters, how is that for lolz?

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

oh man, so many users I used to know... it's fifty shades of grey in here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/world/asia/china-taiwan-strait-aircraft-carrier-trump.html

I remember the last time something happened in the Taiwan Strait - China shooting missiles overshooting Taiwan directly ahead of its first democratic elections in 1996 - , Bill Clinton sent two carrier groups into the Taiwan Strait as a show of support.

and this should really be a new thread. Dammit Jerry!*

*

Spoiler

recently got into Parks and Recreation. Jerry is awesome.

 

[Mivey]

China also commissioned a nuclear submarine with ballistic missiles that can hit any place in the USA from the safety of Chinese waters, how is that for lolz?

Mutually assured destruction is sooo 20th century. Has China nothing new to offer? I mean, the US is blowing billions on a new fighter jet with more high tech then it could ever need, while China is just now catching up to previous century technology.