New Chinese Carrier, any thoughts?

[PapaJacky]

Not if what I've found on the internet so far on both missiles is accurate enough, AIM-120D seems superior in range and if PLA radars are any indication the terminal homing probably isn't much to speak about either. And then the Chinese reversed engineered Sukhios also don't have the same performance as the Russians ones, there still experiencing issues with getting the engines right. Which makes the comparison between the Su-27 vs F/A-18 kind of shaky as a bases for a J-11 vs F/A-18.

Point, but again using passive detection systems to detect a terrain hugging cruise missile, which doesn't have to have the TERCOM system on the whole time. Unless your telling me that they can home in on a GPS signal as well. I getting the idea your being far to optimistic about these air defence, they are definitely formidable but not that full proof against what aren't just tomahawks.

Which doesn't even matter because the AWACS doesn't have the be inside the range of the surface to air missile systems in the first place which I recall was what this was originally about.

Sources for the AIM-120D is as shaky as they are for the R-77. The generally used figure is 80 km which is "on par" with figures for the PL-12 or inferior to them. Terminal speaking wise, I note that China has developed the largest airborne AESA radar and rumor has it that they're offering radars to Russia to spite them. Engines I can concede, but it's noted that China declined to buy Su-35BMs from Russia lately, mostly because they don't need to as their domestic air force is maturing at a faster rate than Russia's. This is related to engines, mind you, because it's usually thought that Sukhois are bought for their engines, which in this case doesn't seem to be true, especially given how China has now unveiled their 2nd 5th Gen fighter.

It's called IRSTs. Concurrently, the one on the Pantsir can detect a cruise missile out to about 12.5 km[1]. China doesn't own any Pantsirs but generally speaking, optical technology isn't state classified and the Chinese ones should be able to do roughly the same. At 244 meters per second (880 km/h), the Tomahawk should cover the diameter of a Pantsir's detection range of a cruise missile in 102 seconds. There are only so many terrain scenarios where that time is reduced, so I'm not gonna bother factoring them in.

The Tor missile system, which China does have, can operate completely independently and thus is not highly susceptible to SEAD operations (mostly because it can shoot down the HARM itself). It has an effective range of 5 km against cruise missile targets (41 seconds of engagement time against a tomahawk), and given it's 7.4 second reaction time, and the fact that it can engage 2 targets simultaneously[2], means that a single Tor TLAR can engage multiple tomahawks at the same time. I should note, by the way, that Iran has both systems

On AWACs, it doesn't have to, but it kinda needs to. Like I've stated, depending on where the operations take place, which means Taiwan is a major possibility, either the USN has to take risks and move the AEW closer to Chinese shores (thus putting them in range) in order to provide support for attacking squadrons, or it can just sit in between a CBG and China and watch for incoming AShMs. The latter implies US inaction and the former implies US action.

[Shofercia]

Sinking a US carrier isn't just sinking a ship, it's sinking one of the most potent representations of America.

It's killing thousands of American servicemen and sending a message 'We are serious'.

The real 'is it worth it?' is whether inviting the massive retribution this implies is worth sending that message.

We're talking about a scenario where the AC is already used in battle. When the US declares war, and uses ACs in that war - they're fair game.

thanks for the history lesson.

the worlds changed since the soviet union was around.

The point is that the electronic warfare capabilities of a carrier group were so advanced 30 years ago that you needed a concentrated nuclear barrage to give anti-ship missiles a chance of hitting the carrier.

Provided your weren't using subs.

I'd have filed that under F, for "sarcasm"

How so? The Soviet Navy's plan was to use 8 110 kiloton nukes against a carrier group to take down the CVBG's EW and and AA defenses leaving the carrier vulnerable to the follow conventional missile strike that was actually what was going to sink the carrier carrier.

told you so.

You saw the future

I prefer China, because they've given the world such tasty cuisine. Who ever heard of a Russian buffet?

Anyone eating Beluga Caviar, Pelmeni, Kotletuy, Olivie, etc.

[PapaJacky]

Sinking a US carrier isn't just sinking a ship, it's sinking one of the most potent representations of America.

It's killing thousands of American servicemen and sending a message 'We are serious'.

The real 'is it worth it?' is whether inviting the massive retribution this implies is worth sending that message.

We're talking about a scenario where the AC is already used in battle. When the US declares war, and uses ACs in that war - they're fair game.

The point is that the electronic warfare capabilities of a carrier group were so advanced 30 years ago that you needed a concentrated nuclear barrage to give anti-ship missiles a chance of hitting the carrier.

Provided your weren't using subs.

told you so.

You saw the future

I prefer China, because they've given the world such tasty cuisine. Who ever heard of a Russian buffet?

Anyone eating Beluga Caviar, Pelmeni, Kotletuy, Olivie, etc.

Only heard of caviar, I'd prefer dim sum :v

[Forsher]

There's nothing to understand if your examples A) don't make sense and B) are wrong and irrelevant in the first place.

My examples make sense and are correct. If you disagree prove it.

Tired, yes. But I am confronting my greatest enemy: the unfathomable depths of NSG to not understand examples. Why I keep trying probably has something to do with anywhere else they function as intended.

I get the feeling that comparing warfare to a trip to Tesco's is a bit of a stretch, making it seem like you've consumed illegal substances recently.

Easiest way to convey that talking about the defender (in the bread example the maker of the bread) is entirely irrelevant beyond what cost they make taking their ship or whatever one is after. Whether or not they can sustain that again doesn't matter because the point is it's about whether the attacker feels if attacking is worthwhile. Obviously, if they feel it will cost them too much to succeed they will not attack.

Tired, yes. But I am confronting my greatest enemy: the unfathomable depths of NSG to not understand examples. Why I keep trying probably has something to do with anywhere else they function as intended.

its a bad example, badly explained thats not relevant to the thing its describing.

I'm still not entirely certain you understand. Which is why I have had to devote quite a few words to try and isoloate the defender from the equation so that you can see they only matter in terms of what they make the cost.

If the reward is out of proportion to the cost in the sense it is too small then an attacker will not attack.

its a bad example, badly explained thats not relevant to the thing its describing.

His example is bad, and he should feel bad.

As I have said earlier, prove it.

On the other hand, you may feel as though my example is far too mundane. Which, to me, makes a better example asd it actually reduces things to an easily (theoretically at any rate) understood level. Of course, that's what one expects of an example in the first place.

Seriously, I accept the main argument - that strategists always attempt to minimise costs and maximise gains. However, I think you're ignoring two key points:

Finally, someone who understands. As opposed to those that quite possibly don't.

- Military strategists will, sooner than civilian/business strategists, accept that a good solution now is better than a perfect one after another several months' study and research. The time factor is greater in military strategy than otherwise - in business, there's always another opportunity to make (perhaps a bit less) money down the road. In the military, a refusal to act now, on the best data available now, may result in such outcomes as an enemy landing fleet making your coast, or enemy ships raiding your seaborne supply lanes, capturing/destroying key materiel in transit.

I would move that time is part of the cost. It makes sense in many ways to do so as time is in many ways a measure of how much one has left. The more time something preserves is more time to create a better position later.

All of which boils down to this: they will attempt to minimise costs, up to a point. But if the stakes are high, they will move now, and run the risk of substantial losses to reach for the prizes, where civilian strategists in equivalent positions will consider further, and accept the possible loss of opportunity.

To me, a military strategist considers time as one of his greatest resources. I feel that it would influence the decision making and alter the relative value of the prize. At the early stage of a war losing two ships may be fine if you get an aircraft carrier but as time goes by and the position may have worsened two ships is too many ships to lose for just a carrier (maybe, not necessarily).

- The number of missiles required to be expended destroying a ship - if the missiles are the only cost involved - needs to literally reach the hundreds before most naval strategists will decide "it's not worth it" (consider that a Harpoon Block II costs $1.2m, while one small frigate can run to $700m (2005 dollars - unit cost of ANZAC-class frigate) - and 10 Harpoons will easily sink an ANZAC).

I suppose this is where The UK in Exile has been unable to get the cost to the defender out of his head. That said, if one has plenty of Harpoons the loss of ten (especially if as a result a reward is earnt) is not worth as much... it doesn't matter so much. And that's the heart of my idea, cost relative to means.

Obviously, it would take some time before (for military powers) feel that their means are too low when compared to the costs. However, I would think that what they have and what they are spending are still considerations. Especially given that missiles are unlikely to be the only costs involved (unless it's some sort of surprise attack or some such where retaliation is not expected at the same time as the attack, such a scenario alters the figures).

When such people decide it's not worth it at lower numbers, concern for the cost of launch platforms and the lives of their crews is by far the larger factor in their thinking. And China - which boasts as much industrial capacity as the next several countries combined, and has a huge surplus population - will have that 'not worth it' point significantly further along in costs. (We were speaking of the relative improvement that the new carrier makes in China's warfighting capacity, were we not?)

I think the Chinese carrier sparked this, yes.

That's again true. However, my idea still works... just not as a centre around which one can base a military defensive strategy because as it has been made clear the costs are generally a long way off from being too great.

Finally, if a nation has such a limited supply of missiles that they need to use half (or even a quarter) of them to take out a single vessel, they should negotiate terms of surrender now when facing any nation with a significant navy.

That would be the goal of any defensive strategy. Have too much for them to consider attacking in the first place. Limiting what they have is a better way of doing this than increasing what you have.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Your fire one missile at a carrier battlegroup.
The battlegroup shoots it down.

The enemy battlegroup now knows you're there if they somehow didn't before, and their carrier's aircraft are now in the subsequent fight. Bad.

You fire a salvo of four P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) networked heavy anti-ship missiles. The 'lead' missile relays targeting information to the other three missiles in the salvo. The majority of the CBG's combined anti-missile defences are suffering from greatly reduced effectiveness, as Shipwreck is a supersonic missile - when they do finally engage, all the 20mm and some of the 30mm systems will be ineffective as Shipwreck is not only a difficult target, being supersonic and all, but weighs a whopping seven tons, and simply can take more damage than that. If one of the ships has SeaRAM, one or two of the missiles will be lost - each time the 'lead' missile of the salvo is shot down, another takes its place as targeting control.

This leaves you with two seven-ton missiles travelling at mach 2.5 to deploy their 750kg high-explosive/thermobaric warheads into the carrier, which are pretty much guaranteed to sink it.
They've lost their only carrier and all the aircraft associated (~60-80), and all the tactical advantages that carrier-aircraft bring to naval combat.

In what way was firing more than one missile not worth it?
This is example was made entirely on a Russian stock Kuznetsov armed with Shipwreck - or a Kirov-class battlecruiser for that matter, which also carries a complement of twenty Shipwreck missiles.

[Forsher]

Your fire one missile at a carrier battlegroup.
The battlegroup shoots it down.

The enemy battlegroup now knows you're there if they somehow didn't before, and their carrier's aircraft are now in the subsequent fight. Bad.

You fire a salvo of four P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) networked heavy anti-ship missiles. The 'lead' missile relays targeting information to the other three missiles in the salvo. The majority of the CBG's combined anti-missile defences are suffering from greatly reduced effectiveness, as Shipwreck is a supersonic missile - when they do finally engage, all the 20mm and some of the 30mm systems will be ineffective as Shipwreck is not only a difficult target, being supersonic and all, but weighs a whopping seven tons, and simply can take more damage than that. If one of the ships has SeaRAM, one or two of the missiles will be lost - each time the 'lead' missile of the salvo is shot down, another takes its place as targeting control.

This leaves you with two seven-ton missiles travelling at mach 2.5 to deploy their 750kg high-explosive/thermobaric warheads into the carrier, which are pretty much guaranteed to sink it.
They've lost their only carrier and all the aircraft associated (~60-80), and all the tactical advantages that carrier-aircraft bring to naval combat.

In what way was firing more than one missile not worth it?
This is example was made entirely on a Russian stock Kuznetsov armed with Shipwreck - or a Kirov-class battlecruiser for that matter, which also carries a complement of twenty Shipwreck missiles.

Um, it wasn't and that you seem to somehow think it should be shows you don't understand.

[PapaJacky]

Your fire one missile at a carrier battlegroup.
The battlegroup shoots it down.

The enemy battlegroup now knows you're there if they somehow didn't before, and their carrier's aircraft are now in the subsequent fight. Bad.

You fire a salvo of four P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) networked heavy anti-ship missiles. The 'lead' missile relays targeting information to the other three missiles in the salvo. The majority of the CBG's combined anti-missile defences are suffering from greatly reduced effectiveness, as Shipwreck is a supersonic missile - when they do finally engage, all the 20mm and some of the 30mm systems will be ineffective as Shipwreck is not only a difficult target, being supersonic and all, but weighs a whopping seven tons, and simply can take more damage than that. If one of the ships has SeaRAM, one or two of the missiles will be lost - each time the 'lead' missile of the salvo is shot down, another takes its place as targeting control.

This leaves you with two seven-ton missiles travelling at mach 2.5 to deploy their 750kg high-explosive/thermobaric warheads into the carrier, which are pretty much guaranteed to sink it.
They've lost their only carrier and all the aircraft associated (~60-80), and all the tactical advantages that carrier-aircraft bring to naval combat.

In what way was firing more than one missile not worth it?
This is example was made entirely on a Russian stock Kuznetsov armed with Shipwreck - or a Kirov-class battlecruiser for that matter, which also carries a complement of twenty Shipwreck missiles.

I'm actually pretty sure the Granit's terminal velocity for it's sea-skimming mode is Mach 1.5, Mach 2.5 for it's high altitude mode, which carries more risk as it allows the defenders more time to react.

[Fellrike]

We're talking about a scenario where the AC is already used in battle. When the US declares war, and uses ACs in that war - they're fair game.




Provided your weren't using subs.




You saw the future




Anyone eating Beluga Caviar, Pelmeni, Kotletuy, Olivie, etc.

Only heard of caviar, I'd prefer dim sum :v

Same here - I've had caviar, of course, but I've never tasted any of those other dishes, nor even heard of them. It may be that there are Russian restaurants in cosmopolitan New York City, but I've never seen one out here in Flyover Country. Chinese cuisine, however, can be found almost everywhere, or at least an approximation of it.
About the submarines of the PLA Navy, I think in any future Sino-American naval clash, they're likely to prove much more dangerous than China's carrier. Some have called their diesel-electric subs obsolete, but they are still useful for guarding China's nearby waters, and their stealthiness and numbers make them formidable. Look at how much grief the Argentine submarine ARA San Luis caused the Royal Navy in the Falklands war, they spent the entire campaign chasing false contacts, wasting ordinance and they never even got close to her.

[Gauntleted Fist]

So have we pretty much come to the conclusion that China having an aircraft carrier really doesn't mean much?

[AuSable River]

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.

This is Phalnax and this is his brother SeaRAM They belong to this magical categroy of weapons known as Close-In-Weapons-System A carrier battle group will have well over a dozen of these babies.
As for space based weapons well there's this thing called the Outer Space Treaty that pretty much every country with a space program has signed and ratified which explicitly prevents placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit.

phalanx is a large gatling gun -- it is not a strategic weapon designed to stop multiple warheads at a single target. Moreover, searam is a missile system designed to down a single missile -- not scores of cheap cruise missiles launched at a single aircraft carrier.

Lastly, a single tactical nuke on a cruise missile makes all of these weapons obsolete. The cost to china of one of these weapons is considerably less than an aircraft carrier.

Also, the notion that you trust a nation like china to adhere to an outer space treaty that doesnt even trust its own citizens and has murdered tens of millions of them is naive at best.

indeed, china is already weaponizing space with recent anti-satellite tests.

[Shofercia]

This is Phalnax and this is his brother SeaRAM They belong to this magical categroy of weapons known as Close-In-Weapons-System A carrier battle group will have well over a dozen of these babies.
As for space based weapons well there's this thing called the Outer Space Treaty that pretty much every country with a space program has signed and ratified which explicitly prevents placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit.

phalanx is a large gatling gun -- it is not a strategic weapon designed to stop multiple warheads at a single target. Moreover, searam is a missile system designed to down a single missile -- not scores of cheap cruise missiles launched at a single aircraft carrier.

Lastly, a single tactical nuke on a cruise missile makes all of these weapons obsolete. The cost to china of one of these weapons is considerably less than an aircraft carrier.

Also, the notion that you trust a nation like china to adhere to an outer space treaty that doesnt even trust its own citizens and has murdered tens of millions of them is naive at best.

indeed, china is already weaponizing space with recent anti-satellite tests.

Got sources for China weaponizing space? I agree in that China will have no trouble lying, but here's the thing: the Outer Space Treaty is like a club of nations, and if someone ever finds out that you cheated, you're out. And that will hurt China's prestige enormously, so they simply won't take that risk. Additionally, ACs were designed for conventional warfare, not nuclear warfare, and the cost of using a nuke is considerably more than losing an AC.

That said, the AC is simply a big floating target for missiles and subs, that best serves as a forward operating base for key missions. It works fine against countries that don't know what they're doing, but use them against countries with decent militaries, and they're gone.

[Shofercia]

So have we pretty much come to the conclusion that China having an aircraft carrier really doesn't mean much?

It means they can troll Japan, (oh, the irony,) that they have a place to train, that they can train in killing ACs, and they get a prestige bonus, so it makes sense to get an AC for China. Is it going to compete with the American Pacific Fleet outside of China's Territorial Water Zone? Not very well

[PapaJacky]

This is Phalnax and this is his brother SeaRAM They belong to this magical categroy of weapons known as Close-In-Weapons-System A carrier battle group will have well over a dozen of these babies.
As for space based weapons well there's this thing called the Outer Space Treaty that pretty much every country with a space program has signed and ratified which explicitly prevents placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit.

phalanx is a large gatling gun -- it is not a strategic weapon designed to stop multiple warheads at a single target. Moreover, searam is a missile system designed to down a single missile -- not scores of cheap cruise missiles launched at a single aircraft carrier.

Lastly, a single tactical nuke on a cruise missile makes all of these weapons obsolete. The cost to china of one of these weapons is considerably less than an aircraft carrier.

Also, the notion that you trust a nation like china to adhere to an outer space treaty that doesnt even trust its own citizens and has murdered tens of millions of them is naive at best.

indeed, china is already weaponizing space with recent anti-satellite tests.

You're wrong on the SeaRAM, the missiles are autonomous, basically WVR missiles. Their main draw back is their short range; 9 km means 12 seconds ETA for a Moskit. However, the main SAM against sea-skimmers on the USN arsenal is the ESSM, which has shown itself to be extremely capable against the generic sea-skimming missiles. The fact that high-quality, supersonic maneuvering sea-skimmers aren't actually proliferated means that more than likely in any engagement with the PLAN, their main AShM of choice is basically a series of what the Russians would call "Harpoonskis". Typical bait for a CBG, show no fear.

[Wesibaden]

This and plus why is it such a big deal? china's technology can't back up its army...

A bullet to every other man. We shall force those capitalist out, by our bullet.

China's real power is economic. That's pretty much it.

China HAS a capitalist way to it which is the only reason why it has success in Economy levels


Late soviet era carrier is nothing to worry about USA, UK, And France all hold a Super Carrier


Not to mention the Nimitz and Ford carriers are the best

[New Rogernomics]

China has 1, Italy has 2, Spain has 3; the US has 11 and another in reserve. Paranoid much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... by_country

[The UK in Exile]

I suppose this is where The UK in Exile has been unable to get the cost to the defender out of his head. That said, if one has plenty of Harpoons the loss of ten (especially if as a result a reward is earnt) is not worth as much... it doesn't matter so much. And that's the heart of my idea, cost relative to means.

the reason I can't get it out of my head is because its relevant. you can't chop out important details you don't like and say "well now it makes sense". any military strategy that flat out ignores the enemy makes as much sense as sticking your pants on your head and saying..... "wibble"

[Cameroi]

while chinese people tend in the west to be thought of as small in stature, it would be an unjustified insult to subject them to the indignity of confining them to carriers. they are perfectly capable of walking on their own feet, as i am sure they would much prefer to do so.

[The UK in Exile]

while chinese people tend in the west to be thought of as small in stature, it would be an unjustified insult to subject them to the indignity of confining them to carriers. they are perfectly capable of walking on their own feet, as i am sure they would much prefer to do so.

fraid not.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Your fire one missile at a carrier battlegroup.
The battlegroup shoots it down.

The enemy battlegroup now knows you're there if they somehow didn't before, and their carrier's aircraft are now in the subsequent fight. Bad.

You fire a salvo of four P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) networked heavy anti-ship missiles. The 'lead' missile relays targeting information to the other three missiles in the salvo. The majority of the CBG's combined anti-missile defences are suffering from greatly reduced effectiveness, as Shipwreck is a supersonic missile - when they do finally engage, all the 20mm and some of the 30mm systems will be ineffective as Shipwreck is not only a difficult target, being supersonic and all, but weighs a whopping seven tons, and simply can take more damage than that. If one of the ships has SeaRAM, one or two of the missiles will be lost - each time the 'lead' missile of the salvo is shot down, another takes its place as targeting control.

This leaves you with two seven-ton missiles travelling at mach 2.5 to deploy their 750kg high-explosive/thermobaric warheads into the carrier, which are pretty much guaranteed to sink it.
They've lost their only carrier and all the aircraft associated (~60-80), and all the tactical advantages that carrier-aircraft bring to naval combat.

In what way was firing more than one missile not worth it?
This is example was made entirely on a Russian stock Kuznetsov armed with Shipwreck - or a Kirov-class battlecruiser for that matter, which also carries a complement of twenty Shipwreck missiles.

Um, it wasn't and that you seem to somehow think it should be shows you don't understand.

Go on then.
Explain why I and the Soviet Navy was wrong.

[New Chalcedon]

China has 1, Italy has 2, Spain has 3; the US has 11 and another in reserve. Paranoid much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... by_country

Italy has two pocket carriers, which together come to less tonnage than the Liaoning. Spain likelwise has two pocket carriers (again, coming to less tonnage between them than the Liaoning alone), and the US Navy's carriers are dispersed around the world in six operational fleets. Granted, five of them are assigned to 3 FLT, which has overall responsibility for the Eastern Pacific, and can therefore be expected to reach China in a reasonable period in the event of a crisis, and a sixth is with 7 FLT, the forward Asian-waters fleet, and a seventh is with 5 FLT in the Persian Gulf.

However, the "paranoia", as you call it, has little to do with China's acquisition of one carrier - it has more to do with the all-but-confirmed reports than between two and four more carriers are being planned for the PLA-N. Consider the lowball estimate: three PLA-N carriers (Liaoning, plus two new carriers) would be the core of a task force more powerful than anything but USN FLT3, and would essentially be able to run riot unless intercepted by same. Five PLA-N carriers operating together would give 3 FLT a run for its money, especially if the would-be F/A 18E replacement keeps having enough headaches that people talk about cancelling it.

The biggest cause for concern is what the Liaoning acquisition means for the future of the balance of power in Asia and elsewhere, not for what the Liaoning can do on her own. Then again, my response (which I believe I've stated elsewhere on this thread) is that America's allies should step up a bit: Japan and Australia both have the finances to support, and the expertise to operate, at least one carrier task group each. India - a major rival to China for power and influence - has one (elderly) carrier in operation, plus plans to build two more.

It's time the US accepted that it hasn't the resources anymore to operate a two-power standard, the way it has tried to since the end of WWII. The peak of US economic power immediately (where the US economy was roughly half the global economy) after WWII was an historical anomaly, largely due to the shattered state of Europe and the lack of development in Asia. As US economic power receded back to a more appropriate 15-25% of global economic output, so too must its military ambitions follow.

In the context of these developments, this means that the US should not be promising extra security to its allies in the region; rather, the US should be encouraging key allies and potential allies (Japan, Australia, India etc.) to develop their own combat capability, possibly through offering design and technical support for locally-build major combatants, licensing local production of export-version aircraft, etc. etc.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

A bullet to every other man. We shall force those capitalist out, by our bullet.

China's real power is economic. That's pretty much it.

China HAS a capitalist way to it which is the only reason why it has success in Economy levels


Late soviet era carrier is nothing to worry about USA, UK, And France all hold a Super Carrier


Not to mention the Nimitz and Ford carriers are the best

Soviet carriers hold nearly two dozen heavy anti-ship missiles, and a ton of SAMs in VLS.
Kirov battlecruisers, had they made it into widespread service, hold the same AShM armament and close to three hundred SAMs, 100 of which are long-range weapons. It's an air defence cruiser with massive anti-ship capability.

There's a reason the Russians don't call their carriers 'aircraft carriers', they call them 'heavy aircraft carrying cruisers'. The only carrier that would have been an actual carrier was the cancelled Ulyanovsk.

Also, neither the UK nor France have supercarriers. In fact, now that the Harrier has been pulled without ready replacement (wtfbbq), the Royal Navy operate no fixed wing aircraft from their carriers, using them entirely as helicopter carriers. The current French carrier is nowhere near supercarrier standard, and the future Queen Elizabeth-class is hardly a supercarrier. It carries half the aircraft of a Nimitz.

[The UK in Exile]

China HAS a capitalist way to it which is the only reason why it has success in Economy levels


Late soviet era carrier is nothing to worry about USA, UK, And France all hold a Super Carrier


Not to mention the Nimitz and Ford carriers are the best

Soviet carriers hold nearly two dozen heavy anti-ship missiles, and a ton of SAMs in VLS.
Kirov battlecruisers, had they made it into widespread service, hold the same AShM armament and close to three hundred SAMs, 100 of which are long-range weapons. It's an air defence cruiser with massive anti-ship capability.

There's a reason the Russians don't call their carriers 'aircraft carriers', they call them 'heavy aircraft carrying cruisers'. The only carrier that would have been an actual carrier was the cancelled Ulyanovsk.

Also, neither the UK nor France have supercarriers. In fact, now that the Harrier has been pulled without ready replacement (wtfbbq), the Royal Navy operate no fixed wing aircraft from their carriers, using them entirely as helicopter carriers. The current French carrier is nowhere near supercarrier standard, and the future Queen Elizabeth-class is hardly a supercarrier. It carries half the aircraft of a Nimitz.

in fact the RN only have one carrier in commission. and that started life as a dedicated helicopter carrier.

[Minnysota]

That said, the AC is simply a big floating target for missiles and subs, that best serves as a forward operating base for key missions. It works fine against countries that don't know what they're doing, but use them against countries with decent militaries, and they're gone.

If a nation that knows how to use carriers and their support vessels faces off against a nation with a decent military, they aren't necessarily gone.

[New Chalcedon]

China HAS a capitalist way to it which is the only reason why it has success in Economy levels


Late soviet era carrier is nothing to worry about USA, UK, And France all hold a Super Carrier


Not to mention the Nimitz and Ford carriers are the best

Soviet carriers hold nearly two dozen heavy anti-ship missiles, and a ton of SAMs in VLS.
Kirov battlecruisers, had they made it into widespread service, hold the same AShM armament and close to three hundred SAMs, 100 of which are long-range weapons. It's an air defence cruiser with massive anti-ship capability.

There's a reason the Russians don't call their carriers 'aircraft carriers', they call them 'heavy aircraft carrying cruisers'. The only carrier that would have been an actual carrier was the cancelled Ulyanovsk.

I believe that the Chinese refits of the Varyag into the Liaoning remedied that, largely by removing the integral SSM weaponry and converting the vessel into a full-time carrier.

Also, neither the UK nor France have supercarriers. In fact, now that the Harrier has been pulled without ready replacement (wtfbbq), the Royal Navy operate no fixed wing aircraft from their carriers, using them entirely as helicopter carriers

.

First, the UK has carrier, not carriers, until the first QE-class is completed. Second, I believe that the decision not to immediately replace the Harrier was due to the desire to have the QE carry F-35s, and no desire to spend money developing a new-generation STOVL aircraft (which is what it would have to be, in order to operate from rather titchy HMS Illustrious), only to have it just coming into service as the full-size carrier, with more capable F-35s onboard, enters service.

The current French carrier is nowhere near supercarrier standard, and the future Queen Elizabeth-class is hardly a supercarrier. It carries half the aircraft of a Nimitz.

True, as is your larger point. The USN is - and is likely to remain for some time - the only navy with supercarriers in service. Although not everyone feels the need to have carriers that would count as towns if only they'd stay still - the Census Bureau would have fits.

[New Chalcedon]

*snips*

in fact the RN only have one carrier in commission. and that started life as a dedicated helicopter carrier.

Perhaps at the first concept - the Invincible was intended to be a complement to the cancelled CVA-01 design. By the time actual construction started, the Invincible-class was intended to be more or less what it turned out to be: a pocket carrier capable of carrying ~20-25 jump jets.