Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
China has 2 operational, 1 under construction, another unconfirmed under construction, and supposedly a nuke powered on the drawing boards. How effective would they when compared to the US Navy? China no doubt is spending time training but the Us has been doing carrier operations practically non-stop since 1941. Would it make a significant difference? | ||
|
| Just because you can, doesn't mean you should |
I don't think these are intended to be used against or to intimidate the US. They are for bullying nearby third world countries and also for show. They could also end up visiting ports in places like Venezuela where they want to pretend they are a threat to us and our allies. ___________________________ Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible. | |||
|
| Member |
Are they a theat, yes. Any platform that's able launch aircraft is a threat. The PLAN are very new to the power projection game and on a steep learning curve on carrier ops. They certainly can put a LOT of hulls into the water quickly, however it remains to be seen how competent they are at sustaining that force from a logistics perspective and how good their training is, not to mention how to conduct operations. Carrier ops is crazy complex, as the British, French and Japanese have done exchange programs with the USN to learn how to run a carrier and/or keep concurrent on operations. One of the obvious short-comings with the current PLAN air wing is the lack of airborne early warning aircraft, and lack of organic tanking. The primary aircraft the J-15 is enormous (think F-14 size) and has been plagued with problems, not to mention a shortage of pilots. They had plans for a nuclear powered carrier however I understand that's been put on hold. Likely more related to the maxim of learning how to walk before running. The PLAN fleet in the past was guilty of too many different engineering systems thus, maintenance and training was a mess, not to mention the logistic complications. | |||
|
Official Space Nerd |
They look impressive and, as 229-9er indicated, will be useful to intimidate lessor powers. They wouldn't match any US carrier group, though. Give them 10 years, they should be able to go to sea somewhat regularly without breaking the carrier too bad. Give them 20 years and a LOT of money, training, and dedication, and they might be able to field a half-decent carrier group. The Soviet carriers were pretty much crap compared to modern US designs, so they are definitely behind the technology curve. Of course, they will get better and improve their technology and trained manpower pool, but of course during this same time period, so will we. Fear God and Dread Nought Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher | |||
|
| The Ice Cream Man |
Bigger issue is: A) They’re quite a threat, if ours stay away due to bought politicos B) I think the future is mass drones, and swarm tactics. War is economics, more or less, and I can’t see fighters and pilots winning that equation, in the near future. If they are designed to be adapted to launch clouds of drones, rather than fighters, I think they could be an issue C) I think the rest of the world still thinks we might nuke Beijing over an attack on the US. Possibly over Korea or Japan - but they might also do it on their own. I don’t see us nuking anyone over Taiwan. Too many whores in DC - but they aren’t Iran, either. Wouldn’t be surprised if they can duplicate some 85+ year old technology. | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
I wouldn't mind seeing them make expensive mistakes on a massive scale. Tomahawks aren't that expensive, comparatively speaking. | |||
|
| Member |
That's the future but, we're talking 15-25 years away, drone tech is fascinating but, still expensive, AI development is still in its infancy, not to mention the Navy is just getting its sea-legs under itself with modern drone deployments. The immediate battle ahead will be a dispersed battle-force, spread-out across a broad spectrum, instead of a Mahan-centric massed fleet seeking a decisive cumulative battle. Smaller, CVL-type aircraft carriers will be needed, a greater increase of electronic warfare assets, along with many more submarines. | |||
|
| Member |
The problem for the Chinese will be their pilots; the pilots they turn out are substandard by orders of magnitude, for a number of reasons, and their air operations are antiquated and inflexible. | |||
|
Political Cynic |
I think a couple of our boats could make short work of anything the Chinese decide to float I'm not worried about their aircraft carriers in the least | |||
|
Member |
Boats dont matter too much anymore. Missile technology is all that matters. The age of large scale sea battles is over given missile technology. And the Chinese have very formidable missile tech. 10 years to retirement! Just waiting! | |||
|
| Political Cynic |
I was referring to our submarine assets. | |||
|
| bigger government = smaller citizen  |
...and will be for as long as “Mei ban fa” is a way of life in China, which is pretty much as long as the CCP is around IMO (It’s a cultural thing akin to saying “Nothing to be done.” or “What can anyone do?” Like if a tree falls on a garage, everyone walks around it for years saying “Mei ban fa..” until the CCP finally comes in and cleans it all up and the rebuilds with enough money so everyone up the chain can skim and still leave a building that will disintegrate if a butterfly farts near it.) “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”—H.L. Mencken | |||
|
Member |
Chinas current & future Aircraft carrier battle groups pose a limited threat to the United States and serve more so in the regional power projection role. The real threat to the U.S. & it’s allies rest from Chinese PLAN submarine fleet. They have put a number of boats to sea in recent years with steady improvements in design and technology. Although most non nuclear, a new type of technology in development lowers the acoustic signature of submarines. In a traditional submarine, a propeller is attached to a driveshaft which is turned by a large engine or hydraulic system. These types of systems rely on a great deal of machinery and moving parts, both create lots of noise in an environment where stealth rules supreme. As we know, subs rely upon making as little noise as possible to evade detection is always the goal. To that end, a new concept in propulsion called a “Rim-Driven Propeller” or RDP (also known as a Rim-Driven Thruster or Rim-Driven Pumpjet) is being tested. An RDP removes the hub, driveshaft and gearbox from a submarine’s typical propulsion system, thereby giving the sub even greater stealth. Think of an RPD as a propeller but with the blades attached to the outside surface of a cylinder, instead of attaching to a center hub like a traditional prop. The cylinder ring rotor is surrounded by stators, which creates rotation via electro-magnetic forces. Using RDP technology on a sub has the potential to significantly lower noise emissions, as well as free-up valuable space on the vessel to allow it to conduct other missions as well. recently there has been some speculation in the media regarding China adopting a Rim-Driven Thruster on its new Type 095 nuclear attack submarine (Chinese designation: 09-V Chu-class). Most of this speculation seems to be based on an interview with Rear Admiral Ma Weiming, from China’s Navy (PLA Navy) on state-run CCTV. China is also in collaboration with the Russians developing two new hull designs. Russia possesses great expertise in building submarines. Stealing submarine technology from the United States has proven problematic for Chinas ministry of State security so the relationship with the Russians is particularly interesting. Stay tuned. ______________________________________________ Life is short. It’s shorter with the wrong gun… | |||
|
Prepared for the Worst, Providing the Best |
Will we? I hope we will, but I'm concerned that we as a nation are becoming very complacent. When China got their first carrier, it was viewed as a joke. Now they're building more, and presumably learning from their mistakes. Yeah, we're ahead, but we won't stay ahead if we don't take the threat seriously. And from the political pressure on our military to emphasize political correctness over warfighting, my confidence in our effectiveness is rapidly eroding. Yes, we have the best people in the world, but how long does that last with defective leadership? My other concern is that the Chinese have vast manufacturing capability and manpower. We used to have that, but these days we don't hold a candle to the volume that China can produce. Sure our quality is better, but the Germans had a lot of stuff that was better than ours in WW2...we just overwhelmed them with our production and logistical capability. Heck, we can't even make enough ammo to keep this county supplied in peacetime...what's going to happen if we go to war?And that's not even considering the divided political climate of our nation...do we still have what it takes as a nation to come together with the resolve to defeat an external enemy? I'm not sure I want to find out. I don't think the scales have tipped in their favor yet, but IMO it's time to stop pointing and laughing at the Chinese and use that energy to whip our own butts into gear. | |||
|
| Member |
The major advantage enjoyed by China in development of their military assets, including aircraft carriers, has been full access to every record of US accomplishments. Starting out with the knowledge of what works, and what does not work, makes research and development much easier. It would not surprise me a bit to learn that the head guy in Chinese naval nuclear applications was trained in the US Navy, served a full career, and is drawing a retirement benefit right now. Retired holster maker. Retired police chief. Formerly Sergeant, US Army Airborne Infantry, Pathfinders | |||
|
| As Extraordinary as Everyone Else  |
CQB60 thank you for your post. I have long been interested in submarines from a novice point of view and found your information fascinating. In doing a Google Scholar search of RDT it’s interesting to note that most of the authors cited are...Asian of some sort.. https://scholar.google.com/sch...as_vis=1&oi=scholart ------------------ Eddie Our Founding Fathers were men who understood that the right thing is not necessarily the written thing. -kkina | |||
|
| Do No Harm, Do Know Harm |
In a word, no. Our aircraft carriers and naval aviators aren’t even in the same category as any other country’s. We have several members that can give specifics. But it’s (literally) a night and day difference. Not even on the same sheet of music. Could China mitigate that difference with other technology, as discussed above? That’s a possibility independent of their carriers. Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired but not strictly required here. Although sometimes distracting, there is often a certain entertainment value to this easy standard. -JALLEN "All I need is a WAR ON DRUGS reference and I got myself a police thread BINGO." -jljones | |||
|
| Member |
Until recently the United States carriers were only ones of that design....others were raised fronts for ski jump type setup. Many countries found that landing on small stamp sized ship on rolling moving windy seas....with a jet was not as easy as they thought. Same with refueling operations....very few do it. We have been doing it since 40s..... While they are catching up on technology....tactics, training, experience are still lagging behind. There is only one reason to build aircraft carrier....it is to project air power further than your plans can fly without refueling, engage the enemy and return home...or to a FOB for fuel. Aircraft carriers are ONLY about force projection and offense....not defense. I think they are more for intimidation against Korea, Japan, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Phillipines, etc.....as United States is less inclined to defend our allies during current administration....is a chance for China to flex and take little micro-aggressions until they own/control a region be default of nobody resisting or stopping them. Subs...carriers...stealth technology....propulsion systems....encryption....cyber ops...etc...are all about getting leverage against US and making us balk before we react as they make their plays in East Asia and Pacific. It is not coincidental they go out of their way to place Chinese citizens in American Universities where government contracts are supported or in workforce with major manufacturers of military hardware/software......they industrial and military espionage efforts are extensive in our country. | |||
|
| Just because you can, doesn't mean you should |
Aircraft carriers (and maybe submarines) made battle ships obsolete in the 40's and have since become obsolete against a major power for their original purpose decades ago. ___________________________ Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible. | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
FWLIW, I've been reading "Japan 1941" by Eri Hotta lately. There are some parallels between the way Japan stumbled into a fight with us in WWII and the way China is stumbling around the western Pacific now. I don't read tea leaves any better than anyone else does, but I'm starting to wonder whether the PRC is going to find itself forcing us into war against it while trying to expand in a way that avoids having to go to war with us. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2025