Support NeoGAF

[Seiryoden]

Further to the above discussion: http://www.janes.com/article/65539/china-s-first-aircraft-carrier-now-combat-ready-say-chinese-media

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Well I'd assume the United States would have Europes back if the Russians went in.

I know nukes kind of ultimately nullify conventional weaponry war.

But if no nukes allowed, America got this. Looking forward to seeing demo's of those new drone swarms. Bet you can get a tonne of drone swarms onto a carrier.

I wouldn't count on it, American public don't really like to send troops to fight for someone else's war anymore.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

U.S. has 19 big ass carriers? Russia only got one?

The US Navy maintains 10 active Nimitz class aircraft carriers. The older ones are currently inactive, some could be put back into commission if needed while some others could not.

Yeah I don't get why we are worried about the machinations of Russia. If it came down to war the U.S. has got this.

Direct war with America v Russia is not what most people are concerned about with their political machinations. If it came to that it would be bad, but the concern is more that a Pro-Russian president could cause NATO to fracture and provide Russia with an opportunity to be aggressive in Eastern Europe.

 

[Renekton]

I wouldn't count on it, American public don't really like to send troops to fight for someone else's war anymore.

Drones and PMC still okay with them I think.

 

[Gallbaro]

The US Navy maintains 10 active Nimitz class aircraft carriers. The older ones are currently inactive, some could be put back into commission if needed while some others could not.

19 includes the Gator Navy, I think.

Edit, yup those are the Marines.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Drones and PMC still okay with them I think.

Probably, but unless those are CoD Super drones, I don't think they could fend off the Russian or Chinese Military with just those alone.

 

[Joezie]

I wouldn't count on it, American public don't really like to send troops to fight for someone else's war anymore.

American issues with NATO lie about in the spread of spending.

Outside of that, most Americans are neutral or positive to NATO and have repeatedly shown support for the use of military force to defend allies.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I wish anyone but Trump and the Republicans would fight for Hong Kong/Taiwan/Tibet and Chinas aggressive plans for expansion.



If it's China versus US, where does South Korea and Japan stand? They'll site with the US right? Is there other Asian countries that would join the US if escalation, sanctions and tariffs took hold?

 

[SRG01]

Direct war with America v Russia is not what most people are concerned about with their political machinations. If it came to that it would be bad, but the concern is more that a Pro-Russian president could cause NATO to fracture and provide Russia with an opportunity to be aggressive in Eastern Europe.

Quite correct. The problem with Russia isn't an American-Russian conflict. The problem is with Russia expanding their geopolitical sphere to Eastern Europe again -- of which many E.E. countries are vehemently opposed.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

I wish anyone but Trump and the Republicans would fight for Hong Kong/Taiwan/Tibet and Chinas aggressive plans for expansion.



If it's China versus US, where does South Korea and Japan stand? They'll site with the US right? Is there other Asian countries that would join the US if escalation, sanctions and tariffs took hold?

Most of Southeast Asia are in China's pockets.

people probably prefer US, but a US under Trump is a different story despite what they politely say in public.

 

[Renekton]

Most of Southeast Asia are in China's pockets.

people probably prefer US, but a US under Trump is a different story despite what they politely say in public.

SEA countries are generally spineless, we will insta-side with whichever flexes more muscle.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

American issues with NATO lie about in the spread of spending.

Outside of that, most Americans are neutral or positive to NATO and have repeatedly shown support for the use of military force to defend allies.

Yeah, I don't ever foresee a time where Russia get's a hard on for Europe, they go in and start holding countries like Britain and France without America getting involved.

No way, America would be in on that immediately.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

SEA countries are generally spineless, we will insta-side with whichever flexes more muscle.

China could take on the entire ASEAN navy alone. We just don't have the military might to fight back if it comes to that.

 

[spiritfox]

China could take on the entire ASEAN navy alone. We just don't have the military might to fight back if it comes to that.

Just send the Thai carrier.

With a white flag.

 

[chillybright]

I wish anyone but Trump and the Republicans would fight for Hong Kong/Taiwan/Tibet and Chinas aggressive plans for expansion.



If it's China versus US, where does South Korea and Japan stand? They'll site with the US right? Is there other Asian countries that would join the US if escalation, sanctions and tariffs took hold?

That's precisely one of the biggest reason why China will never allow Taiwan to go independent. US island chain strategy has China locked down with allies and warships. If Taiwan falls under the pawns of US it's game over for China geopolitically. It's non-negotiable for them.

 

[qcf x2]

SEA countries are generally spineless, we will insta-side with whichever flexes more muscle.

And rightly so. Self preservation is critical.

Well I'd assume the United States would have Europes back if the Russians went in.

I know nukes kind of ultimately nullify conventional weaponry war.

But if no nukes allowed, America got this. Looking forward to seeing demo's of those new drone swarms. Bet you can get a tonne of drone swarms onto a carrier.

Those drones are probably a couple years from being ready for real wartime action.

 

[Aaronology]

At the end of WWII the three largest navies in the world were the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The UK was broke as fuck (rationing didn't fully end until 1954, 9 years after the end of WWII) and let go of it's empire over a 20 year period, Canada's war economy wound down (and they mostly only had small escort ships anyway despite building a lot of them) and most countries had more pressing defense needs.

The Soviet Union only ever had a couple at a time, even in a period where America maintained a peacetime navy with over a dozen. The USSR was not naval focused, it had enemies on it's continent(s). Aircraft carriers became larger and more elaborate, while budgets did not climb proportionally. Many European states to this day have one carrier, but they are individually smaller than the American ones. After the end of the Cold War, budgets were slashed, and so the prospect of building and maintaining carrier fleets became non-tenable for most military planners.

Having aircraft carriers is as much a matter of strategic priority as it is budget. America is an island with no threats anywhere near it. If it fights, it will fight far away, and potentially out of the range of friendly air bases. Other countries have more insular foreign policies, and when they do fight overseas, they will fight alongside America and piggyback off their logistical preparations. Japan's only strategic enemies are China, North Korea, and potentially Russia, all of whom are within airbase range of their country. Europe's only military rival is Russia, which borders European states. Canada has no military threats. Australia has no significant military threats, and the only notable regional rival, Indonesia, has minimal naval forces. Russia's potential enemies are on her borders or not too far from them. South Korea borders North Korea.

China is the only other modern country particularly interested in ramping up it's carrier forces beyond perhaps one or two small carriers. It seeks more international influence, and wants to be able to defend its commitments beyond the range of it's own airbases.

Informative. Thanks, TDM.

 

[Syriel]

I had a professor once that put this in to good perspective; the World's third largest air force belong to the U.S. Navy

That was a number of years ago so I don't know that that ranking still holds water, but I'm willing to bet it's still up there.

Last I checked, the US Navy had more aircraft than the US Air Force.

 

[Prinz Eugn]

Last I checked, the US Navy had more aircraft than the US Air Force.

Nope. "Aircraft" also includes helicopters, too.

 

[Joezie]

Last I checked, the US Navy had more aircraft than the US Air Force.

The USAF operates roughly 5,500+ Aircraft.

The Navy and USMC combined are 3700+

 

[Syriel]

Nope. "Aircraft" also includes helicopters, too.

And drones apparently.

Guess I was wrong there, but then again the US Navy stopped reporting numbers in 2014 (it's been 3700+ ever since).

 

[nitewulf]

Wait China's only aircraft carrier is a soviet refurb? I didn't know other countries were so far behind.

do you kind of wonder why it is so useless for us to spend that much money on the military?

 

[Joezie]

And drones apparently.

Guess I was wrong there, but then again the US Navy stopped reporting numbers in 2014 (it's been 3700+ ever since).

Likely due to their being no real significant purchases.

They've got dozens of new Super Hornets(Most current are SLEP'd), some extra tankers, a dozen F-35C's and are buying 48-50 Ospreys.

Current Status of the Navy

To further the point in example.

The Navy is buying maybe 400 or so F-35C's, the USMC is probably getting 300 or so F-35B's and the Air Force is buying 1400+ or so F-35A's(Numbers subject to change).

 

[Gemüsepizza]

They're expensive.

...and extremely vulnerable. You don't really want to use them against a country which has access to modern submarines or missiles. Money alone isn't the problem here.

 

[Ishan]

...and extremely vulnerable. You don't really want to use them against a country which has access to modern submarines or missiles. Money alone isn't the problem here.

This I always thought of given India building our own . I would assume losing aircraft carriers would be devastating and they need large fleets protecting them .... Vernurable to missiles since large fleets can stop aircraft / other ships

 

[Faddy]

Aircraft Carriers are only useful if you want to start wars on the other side of the world, therefore you can see why the US need so many.

 

[Kin5290]

China really only has one aircraft carrier?

Why is that surprising to me?

It's a Soviet relic, and its sister ship, the Russian Navy carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, has been plagued by maintenance problems (and has apparently lost two aircraft just from take off and landing operations).

 

[Syriel]

This I always thought of given India building our own . I would assume losing aircraft carriers would be devastating and they need large fleets protecting them .... Vernurable to missiles since large fleets can stop aircraft / other ships

This. US carriers don't travel alone. They go to fight in battle groups.

 

[PeskyToaster]

do you kind of wonder why it is so useless for us to spend that much money on the military?

Well it's put us so far ahead of any other rival. No country in the world can hit the US at home but the US can park a carrier group anywhere and it would take a lot of firepower to dislodge it.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

This I always thought of given India building our own . I would assume losing aircraft carriers would be devastating and they need large fleets protecting them .... Vernurable to missiles since large fleets can stop aircraft / other ships

That's generally the amount of surface ships that roll in a carrier battle group, they are also flanked with submarines and the carrier always has planes in the air 24/7 because you cannot scramble fighters on a carrier.

 

[Joezie]

That's generally the amount of surface ships that roll in a carrier battle group, they are also flanked with submarines and the carrier always has planes in the air 24/7 because you cannot scramble fighters on a carrier.

This is untrue. You absolutely can scramble fighters on a carrier(Reagan did it just little over a year ago near SK in response to Russian Aircraft). It's a principle reason why there are so many combat craft on deck at all times. At peak efficiency you're talking about 1 fighter every 30 or so seconds launched.

Hawkeye OTH craft are probably up there more often that not because of Early Warning for scrambling purposes if necessary. This ofc doesn't necessarily negate a strike group scrambling ordinary jet craft for patrol.

 

[PdotMichael]

Only half of the carriers are operational ready in a few weeks at any time.

That means that 4 or 5 fleet carriers would provide around 200 fighters while being vulnerable assets for antis hip missiles or submarines. That isnt really a lot in a large scale war against any super power.

Most important job in a conventional war would be protecting the lines of communications which was the main job of carriers in the Cold War.
Main problem for the USA is that there is a lack of potential air bases around China.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

If it's China versus US, where does South Korea and Japan stand? They'll site with the US right? Is there other Asian countries that would join the US if escalation, sanctions and tariffs took hold?

They'd have to be with the US because if China attacked the US,
Japan and South Korea are going to be the first places hit.

 

[PdotMichael]

They'd have to be with the US because if China attacked the US,
Japan and South Korea are going to be the first places hit.

That's not so clear. Japan and Korea would need to allow the USA to use the air and navy bases which would be basically declerations of war for both countries.

So based on the scenarios they wouldn't do anything.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

That's not so clear. Japan and Korea would need to allow the USA to use the air and navy bases which would be basically declerations of war for both countries.

So based on the scenarios they wouldn't do anything.

The US is already in both countries with a massive presence(Korea alone is like 30,000 personnel).
Those bases are literally China's first strike.

 

[nephilimdj]

Japan is in a weird transition stage, I doubt they want to declare war. They have a tiny airforce and USA is helping it build up its navy to be threat to China.

But Navy is pretty overrated in modern age as others have said, there are dozen odd vendors who will license countries subs to build and each one takes about 5 years to build. Nothing really magical.
Think of it as a really expensive item to buy in tripico.

 

[Renekton]

I had a professor once that put this in to good perspective; the World's third largest air force belong to the U.S. Navy

That was a number of years ago so I don't know that that ranking still holds water, but I'm willing to bet it's still up there.

So maybe Trump had a smart plan after all.

He sees super massive US military power and feels it a waste to not throw that weight around to get sweeter deals.

 

[PdotMichael]

The US is already in both countries with a massive presence(Korea alone is like 30,000 personnel).
Those bases are literally China's first strike.

This would be if we are talking about some total war scenario, which is not very realistic.

Any conflict would start with a long political foreplay

 

[Madness]

China struggles with aircraft carriers because it has no force projection. They are surrounded in terms of where they woulf operate from which is why they are stealing the land in the South China Sea and building ports and airstrips there. Additionally, aircraft carriers are ridiculously expensive to build and maintain. The carrier they have now is a Soviet refurb used solely for training. They are building their own though. But they are woefully behind. Japan has several helicopter carriers that are rumored to allow aircraft take offs in time of war. That is also why they wanted the F35 for its vertical take off and land ability.

You need forward operating bases and safety. In terms of war, China would be at a disadvantage. It is also why they are fuming at the US and South Korea deploying the new THAAD radar to monitor NK missile launches and activity since it effectively monitors China as well.

Though I think in real moderm warfare, carriers against a strong nation are just giant targets. Though an attack and sinking of one, just the loss of life may cause extreme measures. China has rapidly developed carrier striking capabilities and has expanded its nuclear submarines because that is their best hope against the US to silently go through the pacific with the ability to nuke the west coast etc.

 

[dragonelite]

Well I'd assume the United States would have Europes back if the Russians went in.

I know nukes kind of ultimately nullify conventional weaponry war.

But if no nukes allowed, America got this. Looking forward to seeing demo's of those new drone swarms. Bet you can get a tonne of drone swarms onto a carrier.

Modern day kamikaze swarm those drones..
How hard would it be for a country to take down a aircraft carrier.

 

[Agremont]

It's fighters can even be fully loaded to launch. It's a massive POS.

They don't really need to be fully loaded (or fully fueled) because they're mainly for fleet defence. The Kuznetsov is basically a missile cruiser with the ability to launch fighters.

But yeah, it could use some maintenance work.

 

[Gallbaro]

They don't really need to be fully loaded (or fully fueled) because they're mainly for fleet defence. The Kuznetsov is basically a missile cruiser with the ability to launch fighters.



But yeah, it could use some maintenance work.

Building that into the flight deck is crazy

Spoiler

Ivan

 

[Agremont]

Building that into the flight deck is crazy

Spoiler

Ivan

Yep. Those SS-N-19 shipwreck missiles are scary.

 

[norinrad]

China really only has one aircraft carrier?

Why is that surprising to me?

China is too busy paying for the US to build more of their own. Once they decide to take all their money out of the US economy, everything changes.

I hope Donald understands this.

 

[Boney]

Donnie boy has unwittingly unleashed a terrible set of escalations. I wonder how what other cunning plans he has in store for us.

And people being so surprised at only having one carrier is strange. There's no reason to have such outrageous military budgets as the US has.

China is too busy paying for the US to build more of their own. Once they decide to take all their money out of the US economy, everything changes.

I hope Donald understands this.

Donnie boy wlll negotiate the best deal by having the US military pay a friendly visit. What could go wrong

 

[Dehnus]

There's a bunch of reasons, e.g.:

1) Aircraft carriers are almost comically expensive both in terms of actual monetary cost and the level of institutional expertise required to build, maintain, and use them.

2) The US carrier fleet is a cornerstone of the entire military and is funded and maintained accordingly. The newest US supercarrier is set to enter service this year, as I recall.

3) Even if a country could afford to launch one or more carriers, it may not be in their strategic interest to do so.

Can the USA pay for properly disposing the old ones already? Or is it still an "erm..... gee... what do we do witha ll this nuclear waste?.. and it's leaking.." thing. ? Not only building one is an issue, also maintenance and disposal .