New Chinese Carrier, any thoughts?

[Vitaphone Racing]

Not to mention China is literally about to face economic collapse. China is at the state where it's building entire cities for the sake of it just to maintain economic growth.

Wouldn't their economy crashing screw the U.S, too?

I don't think so. USA loaned money from China, not the other way around. China's collapse will screw anybody whose economy relies heavily on chinese exports.

[Badezz Republic]

I knew this thread would end up like this.

[Dyakovo]

That would be an issue, yes. However, the problem is successfully launching that many.

anti ship missiles are cheap, hence they are plentiful.

hence, an aircraft carrier will be obsolete in the next world war because they will be sunk or rendered obsolete by cheap technology.

in contrast, control of near earth orbit will determine the winner of the next world war --hence if you care about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- it is essential that liberal democracies maintain control and dominance of near earth orbit and in turn terrestrial air space.

You do realize that anti-ship missles aren't particularly new technology. Yes?

[Dyakovo]

What you're assuming is that the CBG will let enough ships - which are apparently only armed with AShM - get close enough to the carrier to fire.

you dont need to get close, china will soon be able to launch tens of thousands of cheap land based anti-ship missiles.

a cruise missile costs about $1 million and has a range of over 2000 miles.

end of carrier.

Assuming the missile hits.... It's a rather large assumption...

[Vitaphone Racing]

anti ship missiles are cheap, hence they are plentiful.

hence, an aircraft carrier will be obsolete in the next world war because they will be sunk or rendered obsolete by cheap technology.

in contrast, control of near earth orbit will determine the winner of the next world war --hence if you care about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- it is essential that liberal democracies maintain control and dominance of near earth orbit and in turn terrestrial air space.

You do realize that anti-ship missles are particularly new technology. Yes?

Harpoon and Exocet both date from the late 1970's. Tomahawk entered service in 1983. They aren't new at all.

[Dyakovo]

You do realize that anti-ship missles are particularly new technology. Yes?

Harpoon and Exocet both date from the late 1970's. Tomahawk entered service in 1983. They aren't new at all.

Fuck... That was supposed to be "aren't" not "are".... I really need to proofread...

[Forsher]

I knew this thread would end up like this.

What? Dead for a bit and then rejuvenated to discuss whether or not carriers would actually be any use in a conflict situation?

[North California]

I honestly don't give a shit about it. America would beat the fuck out of anything China could muster. Everyone calm down.

[PapaJacky]

you dont need to get close, china will soon be able to launch tens of thousands of cheap land based anti-ship missiles.

a cruise missile costs about $1 million and has a range of over 2000 miles.

end of carrier.

Assuming the missile hits.... It's a rather large assumption...

Active radar homing. Chinese missiles from the late 80's have been used in combat before, hit an Israeli corvette and killed a few of them.

[Greater Somalia]

China is using this carrier as a model for future Chinese-made carriers. Remember, China was mostly a rice-field nation in the 80s so this country is trying to catch up with much more advanced countries in a short time.

[PapaJacky]

China is using this carrier as a model for future Chinese-made carriers. Remember, China was mostly a rice-field nation in the 80s so this country is trying to catch up with much more advanced countries in a short time.

You're thinking 50's, 60's, and 70's there.

[San-Silvacian]

What you're assuming is that the CBG will let enough ships - which are apparently only armed with AShM - get close enough to the carrier to fire.

you dont need to get close, china will soon be able to launch tens of thousands of cheap land based anti-ship missiles.

a cruise missile costs about $1 million and has a range of over 2000 miles.

end of carrier.

Assuming airstrikes haven't happened.

Assuming that the RIM-161 Anti-Ballistic Missile VLS tubes in the CBR are malfunctioning.

Assuming that the RIM-174 Anti-Ballistic Missile VLS tubes in the CBR are malfunctioning.

Assuming China is now NS and fires off everything in tens of thousands.

[PapaJacky]

you dont need to get close, china will soon be able to launch tens of thousands of cheap land based anti-ship missiles.

a cruise missile costs about $1 million and has a range of over 2000 miles.

end of carrier.

Assuming airstrikes haven't happened.

Assuming that the RIM-161 Anti-Ballistic Missile VLS tubes in the CBR are malfunctioning.

Assuming that the RIM-174 Anti-Ballistic Missile VLS tubes in the CBR are malfunctioning.

Assuming China is now NS and fires off everything in tens of thousands.

You'd be correct by stating that China doesn't have a strategy to launch "tens of thousands" of cruise missiles because that's just mathematically stupid; I mean, you'd kill a CBG and then some, but basic math will tell you that 10,000 * 1,000,000 = 100,000,000,000, which, as far as I can tell, is worth more than a carrier (this by the way, assumes that China produces long range cruise missiles for $1m, which hasn't been proven yet).

Furthermore, you are giving AEGIS credit where credit ain't due and too much credit perhaps where it is due. The SM-3 and SM-6 wouldn't be used to hit cruise missiles. Air strikes against land-based mobile launchers are stupid; as shown by the failure of scud hunting in a Texas sized country in 1991, no less 'scud hunting' in a country where there's no guarantee of U.S. Air Dominance in the first place. Next, the credit you should be giving are the AN/SPY-1, RIM-RAM, SM-2 (and it's variants), ESSM, and hell, Phalanx too. The problem is that China does indeed have sea-skimming supersonic terminal-phase AShMs which essentially fly low enough to evade detection until about 30 km out depending on how low it is (which depends on the sea state) and how high/powerful the radar is. Either way, 30 km, of which can be covered by the terminal phase of say, a Klub AShM, is short enough so that even a Mach 2 sea skimmer can cover the distance in less than a minute (about 45 seconds), which essentially means that in a high-saturation scenario, you'd need maybe a dozen or so of such missiles to overwhelm a carrier's capacities for self defense (mind you, reaction time is at best 5-9 seconds, and missile salvo rate is 2 seconds per missile, and that's peak performance). Overall, it's not hard to kill a carrier, but it's also not easy to do so.

[Forsher]

The US has a lot of aircraft carriers. China seemingly has plenty of missiles. The problem China would face is being rid of enemy carriers before running out of missiles... this means that there's little in having only a few carriers but something to be said for a lot.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Why does everyone seem to think that the carriers will be used against the USA? Unless they're absolutely crazy, the Chinese won't confront the USN with it, it's just inferior to what the Americans have. As most people have been saying, it's going to be a mostly training and testing craft so they can work out the kinks in the design, and maybe create their own. And if it does see any offensive action, it will probably be against some small Far East nation, not the USA.

[Great Nepal]

Why does everyone seem to think that the carriers will be used against the USA?

Because world doesn't exist outside American borders... except those communist Russians and Chinese! OF COURSE, THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK USA!!!

[Tehraan]

Assuming airstrikes haven't happened.

Assuming that the RIM-161 Anti-Ballistic Missile VLS tubes in the CBR are malfunctioning.

Assuming that the RIM-174 Anti-Ballistic Missile VLS tubes in the CBR are malfunctioning.

Assuming China is now NS and fires off everything in tens of thousands.

You'd be correct by stating that China doesn't have a strategy to launch "tens of thousands" of cruise missiles because that's just mathematically stupid; I mean, you'd kill a CBG and then some, but basic math will tell you that 10,000 * 1,000,000 = 100,000,000,000, which, as far as I can tell, is worth more than a carrier (this by the way, assumes that China produces long range cruise missiles for $1m, which hasn't been proven yet).

Furthermore, you are giving AEGIS credit where credit ain't due and too much credit perhaps where it is due. The SM-3 and SM-6 wouldn't be used to hit cruise missiles. Air strikes against land-based mobile launchers are stupid; as shown by the failure of scud hunting in a Texas sized country in 1991, no less 'scud hunting' in a country where there's no guarantee of U.S. Air Dominance in the first place. Next, the credit you should be giving are the AN/SPY-1, RIM-RAM, SM-2 (and it's variants), ESSM, and hell, Phalanx too. The problem is that China does indeed have sea-skimming supersonic terminal-phase AShMs which essentially fly low enough to evade detection until about 30 km out depending on how low it is (which depends on the sea state) and how high/powerful the radar is. Either way, 30 km, of which can be covered by the terminal phase of say, a Klub AShM, is short enough so that even a Mach 2 sea skimmer can cover the distance in less than a minute (about 45 seconds), which essentially means that in a high-saturation scenario, you'd need maybe a dozen or so of such missiles to overwhelm a carrier's capacities for self defense (mind you, reaction time is at best 5-9 seconds, and missile salvo rate is 2 seconds per missile, and that's peak performance). Overall, it's not hard to kill a carrier, but it's also not easy to do so.

That's what Airborne early warning systems are for. The USN can take out anti-ship missiles flying below the radar horizon of a ship and had that ability for decades now. Then they also have to get a launch platform within range of the carrier and not be taken out. Which is also not every easy.

[The UK in Exile]

You'd be correct by stating that China doesn't have a strategy to launch "tens of thousands" of cruise missiles because that's just mathematically stupid; I mean, you'd kill a CBG and then some, but basic math will tell you that 10,000 * 1,000,000 = 100,000,000,000, which, as far as I can tell, is worth more than a carrier (this by the way, assumes that China produces long range cruise missiles for $1m, which hasn't been proven yet).

Furthermore, you are giving AEGIS credit where credit ain't due and too much credit perhaps where it is due. The SM-3 and SM-6 wouldn't be used to hit cruise missiles. Air strikes against land-based mobile launchers are stupid; as shown by the failure of scud hunting in a Texas sized country in 1991, no less 'scud hunting' in a country where there's no guarantee of U.S. Air Dominance in the first place. Next, the credit you should be giving are the AN/SPY-1, RIM-RAM, SM-2 (and it's variants), ESSM, and hell, Phalanx too. The problem is that China does indeed have sea-skimming supersonic terminal-phase AShMs which essentially fly low enough to evade detection until about 30 km out depending on how low it is (which depends on the sea state) and how high/powerful the radar is. Either way, 30 km, of which can be covered by the terminal phase of say, a Klub AShM, is short enough so that even a Mach 2 sea skimmer can cover the distance in less than a minute (about 45 seconds), which essentially means that in a high-saturation scenario, you'd need maybe a dozen or so of such missiles to overwhelm a carrier's capacities for self defense (mind you, reaction time is at best 5-9 seconds, and missile salvo rate is 2 seconds per missile, and that's peak performance). Overall, it's not hard to kill a carrier, but it's also not easy to do so.

That's what Airborne early warning systems are for. The USN can take out anti-ship missiles flying below the radar horizon of a ship and had that ability for decades now. Then they also have to get a launch platform within range of the carrier and not be taken out. Which is also not every easy.

though it has been done.

[Tehraan]

That's what Airborne early warning systems are for. The USN can take out anti-ship missiles flying below the radar horizon of a ship and had that ability for decades now. Then they also have to get a launch platform within range of the carrier and not be taken out. Which is also not every easy.

though it has been done.

Submarines are a different story, I was talking about ships and aircraft.

[Yellow Zone 20-A]

Its a training carrier.
For training sailors for carrier duty, which will be used when they have developed their own kind of aircraft carrier.

[Tasmovova]

China will be reserve once completion of the carrier. The dispute within the region will not be affected by the development of this carrier. Other nations military technology in the region is more advanced currently than China.

[Saxoiy]

Well as a British Ciziten i am not to bothered about this. By the time their carrier is up and running the United Kingdom will also have a much larger carrier avalible which will be bigger and carry more aircraft than the Chinise carrier... As long as they dont make or buy any more there really is no problem here.

[Boblsville]

They will use it against Japan tho.

[Shofercia]

though it has been done.

Submarines are a different story, I was talking about ships and aircraft.

That's true - but subs have always been a problem for ACs. The Yorktown was finally sank by a sub, I think it was I-168.

And there was that incident in Cuba, when the US failed to detect Soviet submarines. The biggest problem an AC can face is being hit by missiles, subs, planes and ships, all the same time. Then no amount of countermeasures would be enough.

[The Huskar Social Union]

though it has been done.

Damn, sneaky fellas aren't they.