Ace of Spades HQ

December 19, 2012

Will China Build Its Own Carriers?
— Open Blogger

PeopleÂ’s Daily Online says China has the ability to build high power aircraft carriers.

Well, they bought their current one and only carrier off the shelf. But a brief review of the video of the launch and recovery of the J-15 fighter shows they slavishly copied US Navy deck procedures, modifying them mostly to accommodate the ski-jump take-off method.

So, can China indeed build their own carriers? They have a robust shipbuilding industry, and their current frigate and destroyer programs are light years ahead of the junky Soviet knock-off they were pumping out twenty years ago. But building a carrier from scratch is kind of a big deal.

Almost the very first question theyÂ’d have to answer would be whether it should be nuclear powered or not. The Chinese do have experience building nuclear ships. But itÂ’s not as straightforward a question as you might think. It takes an awful lot of horsepower to keep a carrier moving. And as the US Navy found in the late 1950s and early 1960s, getting that kind of horsepower out of a small nuclear reactor is tough. So tough that the first US nuclear carrier, the USS Enterprise (then CVA(N)-65) had to have a whopping eight reactors. And those early reactor designs had to be refueled ever 10-15 years. That costs more than all the fuel oil the Navy would have had to buy for her. Unless China has made a lot of advances in nuclear design, and thereÂ’s no solid information that they have, theyÂ’d face the same issues. The US has been pretty successful building nuke carriers. But that the French experience with theirs shows itÂ’s not at all a risk free endeavor.

But if they opt for conventional power, that has drawbacks as well. The need to devote huge internal spaces to fuel is one. All that space that could have been devoted to jet fuel, or other uses, is taken. Further, even with great amounts of fuel, carriers still need to be refueled quite often. That means, if China wants a true blue water capability, they would have to build not just the carrier and its escorts, but also a family of replenishment ships. To some extent, theyÂ’ll have to anyway, just for jet fuel, ammunition, and food and fuel for the escorts. But adding the burden of fueling the carrier is non-trivial.

So, can China build their own carrier? Probably. Will they? Probably. Eventually. I think theyÂ’ll use their current carrier a while to see what works, what doesnÂ’t and what features theyÂ’d really like to have going forward.

Crossposted at XBradTC.com

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:53 AM | Comments (100)
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Fuck China.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 19, 2012 09:00 AM (UK9cE)

2 Let em build em. We've got better planes, better fighters and enough nukes to go around.

We need to stop pussyfooting around and start defending the western way and our rights and freedoms.

We are NOT a communist nation, no matter how bad the left wants us to be. Maybe being a 'cowboy' isn't so bad on the world stage. Everyone KNOWS Obama is a pussy and WILL. NOT. STOP.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 19, 2012 09:02 AM (UK9cE)

3 O/T but three state dept. officials resign over Benghazi. I just started reading link from Hot Air. Clinton should be one of them but she's not!

Posted by: CarolT at December 19, 2012 09:03 AM (z4WKX)

4 The problem is not getting the HP out of a small reactor. The problem is getting the HP from the reactor to the screws. And the expense. It is damn expensive to build a 90,000 ton aircraft carrier.

Posted by: Vic at December 19, 2012 09:04 AM (53z96)

5 You forgot, "peaceful Chinese, with no territorial ambitions"

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 09:04 AM (Khu8a)

6 Carrier operations are incredibly complex. The US has been refining their operations for 80 years. Most countries who attempt to field a carrier give up. Look at the Russians.

Posted by: Dan in michigan at December 19, 2012 09:05 AM (2yD4G)

7 Yes. And you will be able to buy one at Walmart.

Posted by: Price Slasher at December 19, 2012 09:06 AM (NFVkx)

8 It is damn expensive to build a 90,000 ton aircraft carrier It's ok, we're good for it.

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 09:06 AM (Khu8a)

9 Go ahead, make my day. Build them. What you going to use them for? You going to desalinate water for Indonesians after a tsunami? Provide air cover while fighting terrorists?

Posted by: Golan Globus at December 19, 2012 09:06 AM (7vSU0)

10 They could just do what the Brits do and build small carriers designed for VSTOL planes and helicopters. It's all they really need for what they intend the PLAN to do, which is support an amphib invasion. Where would they invade? An island. Which island? One that's out there (waves vaguely toward Taiwan).

Posted by: joncelli at December 19, 2012 09:07 AM (RD7QR)

11 That means, if China wants a true blue water capability, they would have to build not just the carrier and its escorts, but also a family of replenishment ships. To some extent, theyÂ’ll have to anyway, just for jet fuel, ammunition, and food and fuel for the escorts.

boat: a whole in the water into which one pours money

Posted by: fluffy at December 19, 2012 09:07 AM (z9HTb)

12 As for the "8 reactors" at the time of design their only experience was with very small submarine reactors and I suspect they were reluctant to try to ramp up too much at one time.

In addition, they really did not need 8 reactors. It was grossly over-powered. However, I can not say too much on that issue. Even though it is decommissioned it is probably still classified.

Posted by: Vic at December 19, 2012 09:07 AM (53z96)

13 Given the build quality of Chinese infrastructure in the recent past I think you'd have a fair chance of sinking one with a rowboat and a couple of shoulder-launched Stingers.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 19, 2012 09:07 AM (B/VB5)

14 China calls for no delay in gun control laws following sandy hook shootings.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/dxzbro6

Fuck you very much.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 19, 2012 09:08 AM (Hx5uv)

15 I think Japan ends up fielding a homemade nuke carrier before China.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 19, 2012 09:08 AM (Bdr7Q)

16 There's a lot more to it than just building the carrier itself. An aircraft carrier is composed of a HUGE number of interdependent systems and the techniques of making those work together is what makes the carrier so powerful. Aircraft are nice, but the logistics to fuel them, arm them, maintain them, and the people that work on and with them is the real nightmare, and I don't think many countries (if any other than the US) have the wherewithal to do it.

Posted by: SSG Christopher Whitaker at December 19, 2012 09:08 AM (9gJr4)

17 We need to build more Helicarriers like the one commanded by Nick Fury.

Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 19, 2012 09:08 AM (q177U)

18 I, for one, bow down to our Chinese overlords!

Posted by: Barack Obama at December 19, 2012 09:09 AM (XvHmy)

19 We are NOT a communist nation, no matter how bad the left wants us to be.

We ARE a fascist nation, no matter how much we wish we weren't.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at December 19, 2012 09:09 AM (/kI1Q)

20 >>>We need to stop pussyfooting around and start defending the western way and our rights and freedoms. Yeah, that was before Obama. Aint gonna happen.

Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 19, 2012 09:09 AM (q177U)

21 All we need to do to project power is to build a giant railgun in the direction of China... Or perhaps some "rods from god"

Posted by: The Political Hat at December 19, 2012 09:10 AM (XvHmy)

22 We ARE a fascist nation, no matter how much we wish we weren't.

Posted by: HeatherRadishÂ™ at December 19, 2012 01:09 PM (/kI1Q)

We are about 50% socialist, 15% communist, 25% Fascist, and 10% capitalist.

Posted by: Vic at December 19, 2012 09:11 AM (53z96)

23 Why should they? John Kerry would be glad to sell them some Nimitz class and Trent Lott would be glad for Mississippi to build them.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at December 19, 2012 09:11 AM (3GtyG)

24 3 Clinton should be one of them but she's not! -------- Can't resign right now; gotta headache.

Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at December 19, 2012 09:11 AM (IrbU4)

25 Nuclear propulsion might not be a real factor as long as the PRC and PLAN are merely focused on controlling the South China Sea.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 09:12 AM (QdVWw)

26 If the chicoms want to build a carrier they will build a carrier. Who is gonna stop them? Fucking Zero?

Posted by: maddogg at December 19, 2012 09:12 AM (OlN4e)

27 Remember that picture of Obama holding a copy of the book "The Post American World?"

Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 19, 2012 09:12 AM (q177U)

28 Once SCOAMF acts on the petition to build the Death Star, then we will be the ultimate power in the universe.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2012 09:12 AM (XkWWK)

29 The Chinese will want a few to back their big economic play throughout Africa.

They've already had some problems with their economic push there that would warrant a military force projection capability.

They're making a huge investment in Africa and nobody's big stick rules there today, not even the USA. Its kinda like the wild west.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 19, 2012 09:13 AM (JwFAO)

30 Nuclear propulsion might not be a real factor as long as the PRC and PLAN are merely focused on controlling the South China Sea. Yeah, given the likely target (Taiwan) they could announce a green electric aircraft carrier and just have a giant extension cord trail behind it. Thomas Friedman would die of orgasm.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 19, 2012 09:13 AM (B/VB5)

31 And, welcome to the last war China ... http://preview.tinyurl.com/ctyc5eq X-47B Completes First At-Sea Tests Aboard Truman Dec 19, 2012 Military.com USS HARRY S. TRUMAN, At Sea -- The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator completed its first at-sea test phase aboard the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) Dec. 18. The first aircraft of its kind aboard a Naval vessel, the X-47B was put through myriad trials designed to assess the viability of an unmanned system's operation aboard a carrier.

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 09:13 AM (Khu8a)

32 Building a carrier from scratch is a tremendous undertaking. Only four nations have ever done it: The U.S., the U.K., France and Japan. The other nations that had/have carriers, i.e. Brazil, Argentina, the Netherlands, India, and Australia all did it with WWII British surplus ships. It would take years to reach our level of expertise and number of operational groups. I don't think China could do it without devoting most of it's defense budget to it.

Posted by: RDS at December 19, 2012 09:14 AM (rwcvo)

33 Our next carrier will be solar powered, cost half as much, and be operable by Detroit public school dropouts. Da Zero says so.

Posted by: maddogg at December 19, 2012 09:14 AM (OlN4e)

34 Folks, weather outside is too nice right now to sit in here. Have fun.

Posted by: Vic at December 19, 2012 09:14 AM (53z96)

35 by all means, get started on building a carrier group and all its ancillary support vessels and infrastructure right away...

between building a couple CVBG's plus all the support facilities needed to keep them operational, their economy will collapse that much sooner.

beside, i can only imagine the screwups that will result from having peasant conscripts doing flightops with live ordnance. the local fishermen will be pleased with their new reef though.

Posted by: redc1c4 at December 19, 2012 09:14 AM (8MasJ)

36 Oh, good! Now we don't have to make our own...

Posted by: Leftenant Admiral O at December 19, 2012 09:14 AM (FcR7P)

37 A friend with navy experience once asked me what I thought was the fastest warship. I replied destroyers. He said the carriers and suggested that 45 mph was observed on a nuclear powered one

Posted by: Bill at December 19, 2012 09:15 AM (5xzJM)

38 US Navy nuclear carriers are built in Virginia. Ingalls in Mississippi has built the Wasp class carriers which are not nuclear powered.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 09:15 AM (QdVWw)

39 According to Obama and his gooch smoochers, everything about the Chinese system is better, so why not their shipbuilding industry as well?

Posted by: Fritz at December 19, 2012 09:16 AM (/ZZCn)

40 And if the sun ain't shinin' they will put up sails.

Posted by: maddogg at December 19, 2012 09:16 AM (OlN4e)

41 Yeah, given the likely target (Taiwan)

JAPAN: You think? *blink-blink*

Posted by: Paladin at December 19, 2012 09:16 AM (YNPwP)

IMO the Chinese will only build Large Carriers, if we scrap ours.

China has no real strategic Blue Water needs. Carriers are good for TWO things, force projection (bombing other countries without having a local airfield) and Control of the Sea.

A Carrier can effectively control surface ships within about 500 miles of it... somthing no other Platform is capable of (even missle cruisers with long range missles still can't see the targets without air recon)....

So, with US spending the money to protect worldwide trade, and keep the Trade lanes open.... why would China spend the money?

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2012 09:17 AM (lZBBB)

43 Bill, hull speed

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 09:17 AM (Khu8a)

44 I don't think China could do it without devoting most of it's defense budget to it. They'd have to call everybody back to China to even get started.

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 09:17 AM (FcR7P)

45 even if they laid 5 down today -it would take 6 to15 years to make them battle worthy and even then b1's or b2's could take them out easily as they have to Aegis type radar which is paramount to defending deep ocean high value assets

Posted by: Bannable at December 19, 2012 09:18 AM (j6PMn)

46 And if the wind won't blow, theres always suck power.

Posted by: maddogg at December 19, 2012 09:18 AM (OlN4e)

47 They're making a huge investment in Africa and nobody's big stick rules there today, not even the USA. Its kinda like the wild west.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 19, 2012 01:13 PM (JwFAO)

Why Africa? Resources? Seems like a poor decision, unless the Chinese walk over to Africa claim some land as their own, and tell the Africans to solve their own fucking problems. There really isn't a threatening power in Africa besides Egypt. It can become a real drain on a country if you start pouring more money into a continent than you get out.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at December 19, 2012 09:19 AM (NzBQO)

48 Pff. They only have x.

Posted by: people surprised by x + 1 [/i] [/b] at December 19, 2012 09:19 AM (cEtVC)

49 The PRC and Taiwan have all but formalized a reunification.

The stuff that matters - business interdependence, travel, mail/communications, closer convergence of political systems, etc are all in motion.

All that's left is to wait another 10 or 15 years for those roots to sink deeper and it will happen almost without anyone noticing.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 19, 2012 09:19 AM (JwFAO)

Posted by: RDS at December 19, 2012 01:14 PM (rwcvo)

I thought the Soviets had a couple small carriers - Kiev class?

Posted by: Grey Fox at December 19, 2012 09:19 AM (x6tId)

51 If there is one thing our military does right its our aircraft carrier capabilities.

Posted by: lincolnite at December 19, 2012 09:19 AM (Z6rpc)

52 JAPAN: You think? *blink-blink* There's no need. The ChiComs can take the same policy there that they have with Russia: wait 40 or 50 years for the demographic death spiral to advance to the point where almost nobody is left and then just annex it. No force necessary.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 19, 2012 09:20 AM (B/VB5)

53 Japan has an interesting sub force...

i'm thinking attacking the Home Islands with a CVBG might be a bit more exciting than the PLAN is capable of dealing with anytime soon.

Posted by: redc1c4 at December 19, 2012 09:20 AM (8MasJ)

54 Romeo13, dick measuring

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 09:21 AM (Khu8a)

If you want ot project air power, just have a group of 1000 ft. barges that can be towed to an area and bolted together.

Give the poor flight jockeys a 5000 ft. runway that's a few hundred feet wide. Plenty of room and you don't have to build special jets.

Posted by: jwest at December 19, 2012 09:21 AM (ZDsRL)

56 There is no wind without the sun.

Posted by: lincolnite at December 19, 2012 09:22 AM (VJ0iq)

57 We need to keep any Chinese carrier under constant surveillance so we don't miss the epic lols they would provide. Their first night launch and recovery should be awesome. It could set a new standard for "Chinese Fire Drill".

Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at December 19, 2012 09:23 AM (6BgmB)

58 Posted by: Bill at December 19, 2012 01:15 PM (5xzJM)

I've witnessed a rooster tail behind the USS Abraham Lincoln, and that's all I'm going to say about that. There's some videos of carriers hauling ass on youtube, though.

Posted by: Country Singer at December 19, 2012 09:23 AM (L8r/r)

59 When I hear someone say the PRC is still years away from a carrier, their current one caught everyone inside the Beltway off-guard it seems.

Everyone who voiced doubts on how a Chinese businessman could buy from Ukraine a defunct never launched carrier got shouted down. It was supposed to be a large casino barge. Instead the PRC now has it at sea.

Capabilities should rule planning, not intentions. And the PRC now has the minimum capabilities to choke off the oil supply for Taiwan[ROC], Japan, and South Korea. Plus seize resources like the oil under the Spratley Islands.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 09:23 AM (QdVWw)

60 I thank it would be more interesting if they built aircraft platforms

Posted by: lincolnite at December 19, 2012 09:23 AM (VJ0iq)

61 56, lincolnite - take that math and physics stuff to wuwt

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 09:23 AM (Khu8a)

"If you want ot project air power, just have a group of 1000 ft. barges that can be towed to an area and bolted together.

Give the poor flight jockeys a 5000 ft. runway that's a few hundred feet wide. Plenty of room and you don't have to build special jets."

As long as there are no waves, otherwise you have a flight-deck that is never flat...Unless you bolt them together really rigidly, which comes with some really big engineering problems, plus the difficulty of bolting them together.

Posted by: Grey Fox at December 19, 2012 09:24 AM (x6tId)

63 Why Africa? Resources?

Huge untapped/undeveloped market, massive natural resources, and cheap labor. The only thing that fucked bad is the politics.

But Africa won't always be fucked. Its still struggling with the backlash of tossing out the colonialist in too hasty a manner. The Chinese obviously aim to offer an economic and political model that can work for a developing region.

The Chinese are looking 50 years down the road. We can't see 50' down the road.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 19, 2012 09:24 AM (JwFAO)

64 I'd say it's a logical, if expensive step for them. I don't imagine they're planning on fightng us with their navy, but if I were them and really understood just how fucked up the USA's finances are then I would want to have some assurance that international trade lanes stay open if the US decideds to follow throw wit it's suicide plans.

Posted by: Lazarus at December 19, 2012 09:26 AM (q4ggw)

65 The US has trained hundreds if not thousands of naval nuclear engineers. What is to stop China from buying the services of a few dozen to come on over and teach a workshop? China has the wealth and the motivation to build a near-peer blue water navy to secure its trade and mineral sea routes as well as to dominate the seas along its coast. I would expect they will build nuclear carriers and they will be shockingly similar to our newest model. Espionage sucks.

Posted by: richardb at December 19, 2012 09:26 AM (mgl7C)

66 Grey Fox. Remember the Mulberry harbors.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 09:26 AM (QdVWw)

67 And the PRC now has the minimum capabilities to choke off the oil supply for Taiwan[ROC], Japan, and South Korea. Plus seize resources like the oil under the Spratley Islands Only a sunny day with a limp dick American President who won't let an ensign and a couple of chiefs stop them. Oh shit.

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 09:27 AM (1CULz)

Before Tsushima Straits, no one thought that an Asian navy could compete with a western one. Even afterwards, it took WWII before everyone took them seriously.

Probably best not to assume that the Chinese couldn't pull off what the Japanese did 120 years ago...

Posted by: Grey Fox at December 19, 2012 09:27 AM (x6tId)

Posted by: Grey Fox at December 19, 2012 01:24 PM (x6tId)

Use a SWATH design. Check out the USNS Impeccable.

Posted by: jwest at December 19, 2012 09:28 AM (ZDsRL)

70 Hey their Navy is part of their Army. Maybe we should do that too?

Posted by: Prezy-O at December 19, 2012 09:30 AM (YNPwP)

Posted by: richardb at December 19, 2012 01:26 PM (mgl7C)

Do you really think that US Navy Vets will go teach the PRC how to run reactors???

Really?

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2012 09:31 AM (lZBBB)

72 Battle of Tsushima. A very young Isoruko Yamamoto was at the battle. He was wounded and lost two fingers on a hand. If he had lost another finger, he would have been discharged from the Imperial Japanese Navy. Funny thing the quirks of fate.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 09:31 AM (QdVWw)

73 68, Grey Fox - no one really considered the Russians a western navy at that time. That being said, I appreciate the scaremongering necessary to keep the USAF from stealing all of the USN money.

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 09:32 AM (1CULz)

74 66Grey Fox. Remember the Mulberry harbors.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 01:26 PM (QdVWw)

Didn't those rest on the sea-bed? In any case, not really something you want to be towing across the Pacific.

Posted by: Grey Fox at December 19, 2012 09:33 AM (x6tId)

75 71 You can find former service members all over world acting as consultats and the money that they get is considerable.

Posted by: Lazarus at December 19, 2012 09:34 AM (q4ggw)

76 Romeo13 there is precedence of a sort.
American Volunteer Group pilots were hired as civilian contractors by Chaing kai Shek's government.
Then during the Clinton administration remember when security bans were lifted. As a result our telecommunications rocket scientists helped the PRC make their rockets more reliable.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 09:34 AM (QdVWw)

77 Why do think the Japs have been building large helicopter destroyers. They have two in commission and are building two more larger ones. They look a lot like carriers and the two building will have flight decks strong enough for VTOL aircraft. India has one and one on the way. Thailand has the world's smallest and had harriers off of it but now only choppers. However nothing comes close to the air wing a US CVN can bring to a match. The Brits had two baby flat tops by the Falklands and could not keep up a decent CAP. The Argies pressed their attacks but did so in small groups without fighter escort. Fighters would have pushed the results in their favor. One US CV or CVN would have settled the issue sooner. Off Libya in 2011 the French CVN was putting out sorties in one day that a US CVN could do in an hour. So go ahead Chicomms build. Of course I know several folks who would love to see PRC CVs or CVNs. They captain SSNs; a PRC carrier is a Navy Cross in waiting to them.

Posted by: The Man from Athens at December 19, 2012 09:34 AM (Htg5c)

Good analysis, and I say that not because it is exactly what I had thought, but because it is not a scare tactic article. One thing to take away is that building, operating, and maintaining a carrier is awesomely expensive. Warships are not civilian vessels, they have physical characteristics that are just different, and carriers are extra specialized and big. Beyond the physical plant there is the need for the very skilled officers, petty officers, and sailors to run something like that and pass on the skills to the next group coming along.

It took the Japanese, British, and Americans about twenty years to learn carrier doctrine. While the Chinese will copy (obviously) a lot of what has already been learned, there will be a lot of trial and error practice involved. This is the deck operations and operating an airgroup from a floating airbase. This is also operating the escort group with the carrier. Things have to be learned in order to keep out of the carrier's way while it is conducting operations but still be close enough to protect the big ship.

If carriers remain as a capital ship type, then the Chinese will build them, but it will take a while as I doubt they want to make any expensive mistakes.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - sees the gods of the copybook headings on the horizon at December 19, 2012 09:36 AM (hLRSq)

79 Use a SWATH design. Check out the USNS Impeccable.

Posted by: jwest at December 19, 2012 01:28 PM (ZDsRL

As long as the different units have the capability to pitch and roll independently of each other, you are going to have problems, I think.

Posted by: Grey Fox at December 19, 2012 09:36 AM (x6tId)

80 O/T but three state dept. officials resign over Benghazi. I just started reading link from Hot Air.
Clinton should be one of them but she's not!
Posted by: CarolT at December 19, 2012 01:03 PM (z4WKX)

Well, in typical liberal style, the report came back as there were tons of failures and lots of things that can be done to prevent this from happening in the future, but NO ONE IS RESPONSIBLE for the failures.

Liberalism == Actions have NO CONSEQUENCES

Posted by: © Sponge at December 19, 2012 09:38 AM (UK9cE)

81 "There's no need. The ChiComs can take the same policy there that they have with Russia: wait 40 or 50 years for the demographic death spiral to advance to the point where almost nobody is left and then just annex it. No force necessary."

China is about to enter into it's own death spiral, if what i've read is correct: male/female ration is currently 118-120/100 and the HIV rate is accelerating too http://tinyurl.com/bjkefxk not to mention the health issues secondary to environmental pollution

the cultural issues raised by the sex imbalance, the internal forces of poor factory w*rkers wanting to own some of what they make, and their own economic house of cards all combine to make, IMHO, China as likely to collapse as anyone.

Posted by: redc1c4 at December 19, 2012 09:39 AM (8MasJ)

82 You over-simplified Operation Corporate there. The RN kept Hermes and Invincible east of the Falklands. The only way the Super Etendards or Skyhawks could have gotten to them was to have staged out of Stanley. The invasion fleet ships were closer in and thus could be struck. The Sea Harriers had limited loiter time plus the RN lacked an E-2 capability. So that is how ships of the invasion fleet got hit.

You also forgot Brazil now operates ex-Kuwait A-4KUs off the ex-French carrier Foch.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 09:39 AM (QdVWw)

83 Do you really think that US Navy Vets will go teach the PRC how to run reactors???

Really?

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2012 01:31 PM (lZBBB)

A few might.

I am not trying to insult the armed forces, but throw enough money at enough people and a few will bite.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 19, 2012 09:43 AM (GsoHv)

84 The PRC learning curve might not be as steep as some think. After all they do have a long history of other navies learning how to run them to study. All the way back to the original HMS Furious which carried out air strikes in WWI.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 09:45 AM (QdVWw)

85 true Anna, but reading about it and doing it yourself are two different things.

Posted by: redc1c4 at December 19, 2012 09:46 AM (8MasJ)

86 I recall a US study of how we would have taken back the Falklands - at least three carrier battle groups, plus four amphibs, a screen of dozen SSNs, after destroying every runway in Argentina, then essentially landing an entire Marine division ... And we could have done it with ready assets and been there a month faster then the Brits. (and it was a Navy study, didn't even include getting team green or blue involved).

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 09:48 AM (Khu8a)

87 I'm not trying to insult the US Navy either. Look at the retired pool of nuclear engineers. Some for sure are not getting the pay or medical or retirement benefits they want. Some agent of the PRC contacts them, offers them a nice bonus to come to China and teach a class on what they know. If done well, a nicer bonus comes their way laundered thru so many banks not even the Federal Reserve can trace it.

We've seen this script before and its infected all layers of the American government.

Posted by: richardb at December 19, 2012 09:50 AM (mgl7C)

88 Having a carrier nowadays is like having battleships in the years before World War I. It show's you're a major-league country. That's why the Europeans all have their dinky amphibious-assault ships which we all agree to pretend are actual aircraft carriers. China will build a carrier, possibly several. And then China will have no use for them. They'll go on the occasional cruise in the South China Sea, maybe transit the straits into the Indian Ocean just to rattle India's cage a little, but most of their time will be spent docked. Seriously: what power-projection goals does China have? Most of their interests are within range of their mainland bases. And do they REALLY want to start a naval race with Japan, India, Australia, and Indonesia? Challenging the USN's dominance in Asia just means everyone else will follow suit.

Posted by: Trimegistus at December 19, 2012 10:06 AM (lrvnD)

89 If anyone cares, here's my thoughts on the Falklands.

http://xbradtc.com/the-naval-war-in-the-falklands/

It's kinda long.

Posted by: xbradtc at December 19, 2012 10:09 AM (O0L6N)

90 What naval interests? Why oil from the middle east. Secure mineral routes from Africa. Chase off the Japanese who right now can clobber the PRC navy with their Navy. If I remember correctly, the PRC is actively trying to intimidate all its neighbors from Indonesia to Japan over their ownership of the entire south China sea. Look at a map. Its obvious why they would want an offensive navy and nothing says offensive like a nuclear carrier with 80 combat aircraft dominating a sea space with a diameter of 500 miles.

Posted by: richardb at December 19, 2012 10:13 AM (mgl7C)

Posted by: yankeefifth at December 19, 2012 10:29 AM (Z9EHQ)

92 Her is what those commie bastards are really up to, I hope - google "chinese strategic nuclear submarine aircraft carrier" and make sure you are not drinking anything you do not need all over you desk.

Posted by: yankeefifth at December 19, 2012 10:32 AM (Z9EHQ)

93 chinese plans are to actually lash a couple of 094's to the hull of liaoning and use them for propulsion or have them tow her around by a couple of leashes. considering how loud plan submarines are towing a carrier is not any less stealthy than their usual routine an is more useful than being tied up pierside.

Posted by: yankeefifth at December 19, 2012 10:36 AM (Z9EHQ)

94 plan navy does not even get 100 comments? smart military blog indeed.

Posted by: yankeefifth at December 19, 2012 11:04 AM (Z9EHQ)

95 45 mph was observed on a nuclear powered one

I'm not pointing a radar gun at one too find out.

Posted by: Sgt. No, you're good of the VA State Police at December 19, 2012 11:10 AM (Xefrb)

Why wouldn't they build them? We're paying the bill...

Difficult but not impossible, oil or nuke.

Conventional powered, steam snipe, CV deity; CV by god 64.

Engineering, Fuels and Strike Ops, 91-94.

Posted by: Bad Lt. Cmdr. at December 19, 2012 12:19 PM (zWElD)

97 Are naval reactors really that difficult anymore? A serviceable design need not be cutting-edge technology, and the Chinese have had plenty of time, experience, and espionage to help them along. If they want a nuclear carrier I'm sure they will have one.

Posted by: GalosGann at December 19, 2012 02:10 PM (BKyGT)

98 Also remember thar China got HMS Melbourne, and studied it for years before finally scrapping it. It was fairly modern with steam cats. They learned a great deal tearing it down. Hopefully they will copy the crappy propulsion.

Posted by: Crusaderf8u at December 19, 2012 04:35 PM (joFRb)

50. I thought the Soviets had a couple small carriers - Kiev class?

Had. Kiev and Minsk were sold to China - officially as part of military themed amusement parks, though don't be surprised if they PLAN eventually uses them as helicopter carriers/amphibious warfare vessels.

Novorossiysk was scrapped. Admiral Gorshkov has been completely rebuilt as a near full-deck carrier for use by India.

Posted by: Lurker at December 19, 2012 09:41 PM (kI2Uk)

100 The reason the People's Liberation Army Navy is so confident they can take advantage of their "robust" indigenous shipbuilding industry is because China doesn't need to do the R&D for a ground up carrier program.

I wouldn't doubt they already have another Dongfan Chung at Newport News Shipbuilding that has already copied all of the plans from bow to stern of the new Ford class next gen carrier.

Posted by: mblack72 at December 20, 2012 05:33 AM (5TnlH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

122kb generated in CPU 0.1488, elapsed 0.3511 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3148 seconds, 228 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.