About the aircraft carrier plan of China

[weasel1962]

Re:

A number of rumours have been circulating. One that is interesting is that China is planning to have 3 CV groups before 2020.

Also, Varyyag will take several years to become operational for take-off/landing operations, if it becomes operational. Too many things to fit incl radars, aircraft maintenance, catapults and most importantly, engines. That will mean extended dock times which is not happening at the moment.

 

[Big-E]

A number of rumours have been circulating. One that is interesting is that China is planning to have 3 CV groups before 2020.

It will take that long just to lay down the first hull much less get three built and operational.

 

[powerslavenegi]

The only impressing thing we saw when using the former east german fulcrums was their very good dog fight capability. Anything else was inferior to western standards.

What else is remaining ? fit in a new generation AESA radar and a BVR missile and you have a top of the line fighter.

 

[lastsalvo]

Hi, new here, just like to say with regards to the development of the aircraft carrier, it's highly likely that the carrier will serve first and foremost, as a political tool of intimidation against other forces in the region that they may potentially clash with, discouraging direct military action. If u've studied Chinese military doctrine in-depth, it is obvious that for the past 5000 years, China (at least the majority population of the Han ethnicity), China has always encouraged defensive military strategies and assymetric warfare (ie: bribe, political pressure, etc). One of the best examples is the Great Wall. Bearing in mind that the entire infrastructure was built, rebuilt and refurbished over several dynasties, the notion of protecting Chinese interests by locking out foreign forces is proven to be an intrinsic element in Chinese military thinking. Of course in this day and age, such a strategy of absolute denial is impossible, but the classic Chinese mentality of assymetric warfare is not lost, and the ability to construct and operate such a weapon certainly does add considerable weight if political pressures were to b applied. This kind of mentality is put into practice with very real results. For example, although CHina's military is overall, still behind Western standards by at least one or two decades, it's rapid modernisation is increasingly posed as a huge threat that is givin China greater clout in regional disputes, so much so that the US Department of Defence openly states in their congressional report that China is a growing concern not to b taken lightly of.

Though key technical skills and capabilities will b gained, and certainly the possession the only aircraft carrier operated by an East Asian nation will b an excellent asset for propaganda, from the research i did it seems as if tho these are not as important as the first goal. In the foreseeable future, the key technical skills China is afta r things like building a capable network of cruise missiles, a modern submarine fleet, survivable anti-air assets and improved C4ISR capabilities, particularly in the fields of Satellite Jamming Technology and Intelligence. Aircraft carriers are primarily used for assaults and although havin it would b a good addition for any contingency plan in an invasion of Taiwan, the restricted geography of the Taiwan Strait would pretty much eliminate any real advantage of havin a mobile attackin force (which could escape preliminary counter-attacks staged by Taiwan/possibly USN and USAF against airports). And as the propaganda role, although it would certainly fan nationalistic sentiments to new heights (unforunately), those who r educated (and based on my experience in Chinese military forums, i would say many of who does openly express a balanced perspective on the state of Chinese military power, as opposed to recitin wateva the military news on CCTV8 says) r quick to point out that the scale of the Chinese development comes no where close to US capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, its propaganda value would not b as great, as say, the current Chinese progress in the construction of modern submarine fleet, which is of much greater importance in not only a campaign against Taiwan, but to the overall security of Chinese energy interests overseas, much of which is transported through the US-patrolled Malacca Strait.

(My general analogy on Chinese military thinking is based upon readings from China's Use of Military Force: Beyond the Great Wall and the Long March by Andrew Scobell (US Army War College) pages 15-40 Layers of Culture -The Chinese Cult of Defence, as well as from sources such as www.strategypage.com, a website ran by James Dunnigan, a professional military analyst who codesigned a war games simulation featured in November 1990 on ABC's Nightline, which correctly projected every major aspect of the Gulf War (specifically read articles in the links below: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2006127223510.aspw, http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/478-3056.aspx, http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/478-3080.aspx, and the book How to Make War (Fourth Edition) written by him as well (in his book refer to various bits regarding China in sections such as Part Three: Naval Operations - THe Navy: Run Silent, Run Deep and Part Five: Special Weapons - The Electronic Battlefield and Information Warfare), as well as the book China's Path to Power by Scott Cooper, who served 10 years in the Australian Defence Force, in his book refer to Chapter 4 - Intent and finally, through conversations with my uncle, who is a Shao Xiao (equivalent to a major) in the PLANAF, Guiping Naval Airstation of the South Sea Fleet)

...if anyone cbb to chek the details themselves

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I'm not so sure it will take 14 years. Russia had offered its help in CV design/construction during Zhuhai 2006. If there is sufficient $$$ and political willpower, I think 3 CVs is actually achievable in that time frame. We're not talking about Nimitz sized CVNs or quality here. China has also been studying CV design for a number of years already.

If China decides to go it alone, perhaps the design itself would take significantly longer. Construction wise, I think China has more than sufficient shipyards to undertake CV construction.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

I'm not so sure it will take 14 years. Russia had offered its help in CV design/construction during Zhuhai 2006. If there is sufficient $$$ and political willpower, I think 3 CVs is actually achievable in that time frame. We're not talking about Nimitz sized CVNs or quality here. China has also been studying CV design for a number of years already.

If China decides to go it alone, perhaps the design itself would take significantly longer. Construction wise, I think China has more than sufficient shipyards to undertake CV construction.

The construction of an aircraft carrier is more than just building the hull. You need to take the enormous support network required to operate such an asset into consideration. At this point China simply does not have such a system in place to support a carrier battlegroup. She is seriously lacking in naval warfare capability, especially ASW. Studying designs is one thing, putting the plans to work is an entirely different ball game. The hope to build three battlegroups before 2020 is very unlikely if not completely unrealistic.

It took the U.S. nearly 10 years to build the USS Nimitz, and before that they already have decades of experience in this field. Unfortunately for China, there is no great leap foward when it comes down to it.

 

[lastsalvo]

The construction of an aircraft carrier is more than just building the hull. You need to take the enormous support network required to operate such an asset into consideration. At this point China simply do not have such a system in place to support a carrier battlegroup. Studying designs is one thing, putting the plans to work is an entirely different ball game. Three battlegroup before 2020 is very unlikely if not outrigt impossible.

It took the U.S. nearly 10 years to build the USS Nimitz, and before that they already have decades of experience in this field. Unfortunately for China, there is no great leap foward when it comes down to it.

I agree. In addition to the technical problems, i guess one must also look at what r the economic and strategic constraints of havin an aircraft carrier. The construction of an infrastructure required for the operation of an aircraft carrier battlegroup would not b economically desirable to China even in the next decade, since China's primary focus is on securing energy supply and using political pressure to solve any disputes, as opposed to actual use of military power. The Taiwan issue is a long term one, and the CCP is more than willing to wait out this issue for at least another decade. It'd b much wiser to set aside the budget for more modern nuclear submarines and R&D into the development of communication/logistics in the operation of a blue water navy. Strategically, if China is seen as a country rushing off to build as many aircraft carriers as it possibly could, then the impact of the extertion of soft-power exercised by Beijing would b greatly diminished, as that would definitely spark off an arms race between it and its neighbours (specifically to China's dismay, Japan). Assymetric warfare is the level of intensity China wants to maintain in terms of engaging its potential rivals.

 

[contedicavour]

What else is remaining ? fit in a new generation AESA radar and a BVR missile and you have a top of the line fighter.

The Fulcrums already carried the Alamo AA10 didn't they ? So they did have BVR capability, though not the more advanced AA12.

cheers

 

[slapshot]

It was reported in the Russian Kommersant daily newspaper on Oct 24/06 that Russia and China where finalizing terms for 50 SU-33's at a reported cost of US$ 2.5 Billion. The first two fighters would be delivered to the PLA Navy in 2007~08 for trials and evaluations so it would seem China wants a CV capability. How extensive that capability is to be is anyones guess. I am not a naval expert but 50 Su 33's could equip a few CV's I would say.

 

[lokyuen12345]

Aircraft Comparsion

OK, lets clear the fact that Varyag is going to be the first Aircraft Carrier in China (No one would let a ship port in Dalian for casino and hotel refurnishing for 6 years!)

See my document for listing such equipments and possible modification by PLAs. I spent a lot of time on it.


http://www.visionnet.com.hk/temp/AC.doc

###

 

[Galrahn]

I'm just throwing my two cents out there for discussion.

Multiple aircraft carrier’s fit the geopolitical strategy of China moving into the next decade, so I tend to think the analysts who believe China is going to build an aircraft carrier soon are correct. I don't see the Varyag as apart of that strategy, except maybe as a training carrier.

While the Varyag has surely been inspected, the Minsk and Kiev have most likely been inspected as well for technical data, meaning China has had about a decade to gather information for development. If you believe it would take China a decade to design a carrier, 2007 is your year, considering China has had unlimited access to former soviet aircraft carriers since 1997, not to mention they probably stolen a number of secret technologies about the US carriers.

I don't see how any carrier that can carry less than 36 fighters/bombers fits their strategy though, because the political strategy for an aircraft carrier in China is about political projection, not military firepower, although one equals the other. A Chinese Aircraft Carrier has nothing to do with the Taiwan 'problem' or Japan or South Korea or even the United States Pacific Fleet, rather the String of Pearls strategy of protecting sea-lanes from the South China Sea to the Middle East and Africa.

In a String of Pearls strategy, assuming Pakistan and Iran are aligned with China in such a strategy, the only regional countries that could pose a legitimate threat to a Chinese Carrier Task Force would be Australia, India, and Singapore. India and Singapore would be the most vulnerable in such a scenario, mostly due to land-based support China could provide in a military confrontation.

The rise of India and the increased presence of the United States in the Indian Ocean makes a Chinese Aircraft Carrier much more likely today in my opinion. An aircraft carrier gives China the force projection necessary to provide assurance politically to regional partners in Africa and the Middle East, and the combination of several aircraft carriers would give China a regional military projection unmatched in the Middle East and Africa to all except Saudi Arabia, who could qualify as a potential partner of China.

The ability to surround India with bases in Pakistan and Indonesia, combined with Carriers in the Indian Ocean, would make it possible to politically neutralize India as an adversary in a military confrontation. The ability to project forces as far as the Arabian Sea, Red Sea, and South Indian Ocean would make it difficult for European and Atlantic Ocean forces of the United States to restrict the flow of goods from Africa and the Middle East to China. Furthermore, a single aircraft carrier with 36 or more fighters with a large, distributed submarine presence and land based air support from the South China Sea could hamper Australia's ability to project air forces beyond the regional areas of Australia, preventing Australia from disrupting the flow of goods to China during a military confrontation.

While a Chinese Aircraft Carrier strategy doesn't deal with the US Pacific Fleet, the JMSDF, South Korea, or Taiwan, it does address the rising India issue by encouraging neutrality should a military confrontation breakout between China and the US, plus it does address potential confrontations with southeast Asian countries that would attempt to disrupt the flow of goods by sea, and it can neutralize any potential Naval threat from Europe by providing a credible deterrence at the major bottlenecks, specifically southern Africa and the Suez Canal. It would allow China's ongoing strategy for modern submarines, long range fighter and bomber aircraft, and both cruise and ballistic missile systems to keep the eastern and northern front manageable, and most importantly supplied during a military confrontation. The supply factor is key, because if Japan and South Korea have serious concerns about the ability to stay supplied from the Middle East or even Canada and the US during a military confrontation, they may opt out of their strategic commitments altogether, which would leave the US Pacific Fleet with a choice to go it alone against China, or avoid the military confrontation altogether and let Taiwan go.

After all, with political and military assistance from Russia and/or North Korea, that northern and eastern threat axis can be tilted heavily in the favor of China in a military confrontation in the future. No matter how you look at it, the addition of Chinese Aircraft Carriers in the String of Pearl strategy gives China tremendous political leverage over potential adversaries, which as any study of Chinese Military History will tell you, would be the ultimate goal for the Chinese by avoiding a potential military confrontation altogether by creating an unfavorable political and military environment to any potential adversary.

 

[lokyuen12345]

100% agreed with you.

But what if China is going to put the carrier into their newly formed "Blue Water" navy, and I don;t see they have any intention to compete with US or any other countries. All their modernization in military are all due to homeland security concern, while power or military projection is just needed on Taiwan, and partly on Japan, while other countries, I don't see any imminent threats posed. While in this case, their motive is very smart. As keeping a global military running and operating is so costly that is not a thing china or even japan (2nd economic power) can afford, it's only US got that money on global power projection.

Then just a aircraft alone can hardly solve all problems, but at least secure the south china sea resources, taiwan projection, and defend the in/out china oil tank in the vincinity.

While jsut step by step, on the progress or boost of her economic power, it is very liekly that china would increase carrier number. But absolutely not a scale like US. Meanwhile, they don't have the power or intention to start a war or conquer any places.

So they are implementing one carrier by 2010, is a very smart move, and as a test or first step to take control on carrier technology and tactics. At least it should get some help on Taiwan power projection.

##Personally speaking, I don';t think Taiwan-China war would break out, anyway they are all chinese. And taiwan population don't want to be independent, nor her army too. Just a very small group of people with Japan support and partly they think or really is, US support. So this political issue, how long will it be going? I think really short. Not more than a decade, taiwan would suffer a self-break down due to internal political issue.

 

[Galrahn]

While jsut step by step, on the progress or boost of her economic power, it is very liekly that china would increase carrier number. But absolutely not a scale like US. Meanwhile, they don't have the power or intention to start a war or conquer any places.

China isn't building an aircraft carrier to fight a war anymore than the France is building an aircraft carrier to fight a war, but in the end it is entirely unreasonable to assume neither France nor China will fight a war in the next several decades. I'm not talking about against each other, I simply pointing out there is no century in human history where war wasn't fought at some point, and there is no reason to believe humanity has changed simply because it is the 21st century.

China is as dependent upon the global trade market today as the US, India, or any European country for that matter. In the 21st century, virtually every economic forecast has predicted that Africa and South America will be the places of major economic growth, and there is an expectation the stronger economies of today will compete for resources and economic trade in those regions, and China is already very busy in both regions. While it is possible China wouldn't protect access to those resources, it is unlikely.

China is well aware that military power currently gives the United States, France, India, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, and other European Nations tremendous economic flexibility and political reach into Africa, which is why I see the aircraft carrier as the next step for China in order to maintain competition in that market. After all, while a US aircraft carrier may focus on a region like the Middle East today to provide economic stability for resources, it is very likely China will require the same force projection in the future to Africa to insure secure access for the flow of resources from Africa to China, and the necessity will become even bigger when inflation catches up to China like it most likely will by next decade.

I also think it is foolish of the United States to believe they have an advantage in South America. In my opinion, the US has a bigger opportunity, but Russia, China, and Europe will be major players in the economies of South America. It will be interesting to watch the various strategies play out for South America over the next decade, in particular what happens in Brazil, who already has an aircraft carrier to project regionally. That could be important over the next few decades, because many believe Brazil may be the next nation to rise economically similar to how we have seen China and India rise in the last decade (assuming they overcome some internal problems).

 

[Ths]

Swerve:
1. Agreed that the USA is not unprepared.
2. The US embargo would have crippled the Japanese economy.

From other dissimilarities it does not follow that China has peacefull intentions.

The real problem is that China has to deal with Russia as well as the USA.

 

[Waylander]

What else is remaining ? fit in a new generation AESA radar and a BVR missile and you have a top of the line fighter.

As if it would be that easy to make a BVR killer and network capable plane out of an older fighter.

 

[Ths]

First of all: I would like to wellcome Lastsalvo. You've started strongly - and if keep anywhere that level You are a usefull addition to this board in my modest opinion.

It is a pleasure to see the development of the debate, as it started out with tphuang and Yours sincerely not only not being on the same page; but we weren't in the same library.

My intention was to disregard the horticultural excentricities put in the pipe by the claims made from patriotism. The figures are hardly to be trusted - and trust me: I've seen my share of creative bookkeeping and unconvincing sales pitches. This leads us into a situation where there isn't much information to be gleened from the technical data available.

We have to proceed along paths. My avenue is the strategic analisys where You postulate a position to be achieved (in this case a serious challenge to the USA) from a given starting point (China say about 5 years ago) and investigate if it is possible to move from start to end within a given timeframe.

Is there the time?
Can the actions of the other be considered stable (unattentive) in the period?
What are the cost measured in resources used?
What non cost-sensitive obstacles are there?

To name a few factors.

My conclusion is that that China within a reasonable time frame (say 10-20 years) will be able to:
1. Build a boat with a flat top that might impersonate a carrier.
2. They might operate some sort of fixed wing aircraft from said bucket - provided they aren't to critical on the issue of recovering planes and boat.
Here I've been generous in saying they will build a Phantom - which actually was a very good plane.
3. They might operate submarines that occationally won't blow up whenever they fire a missile.
4. The Missile might - on a good day, with strong westerly blizzard hit somewhere in the USA - and it cannot be excluded that it will actually detonate.

But a PLAN that can challenge anything but the US Navy's SAR - no way.

So far so good.

I can see the String of Pearls ploy; but it is my guess (and it is a guess) is that it will backfire. It just might give Australia, Japan, Singapore and India something to talk about.
Furthermore the supporting cast for China is even worse than the one the Soviet Union had. Any positive impression from African countries (take your pick), Myanmar and Pakistan is due to fraudulent bookkeeping.

I think it was my very esteemed collegue, Galrahn that said something about the prospects of Africa and South America - (If it wasn't You I apologise).

The only reason Africa isn't an important player on the international scene today is the social organisation; but that says it all. Africa hasn't gotten its act together dispite having had 20.000 odd years - no sign of them sobering up now - on the contrary.

South America will have to change their economic and social system, which will not happen without a real revolution (not the present changing of office among supernumerary colonels), that will keep the continent occupied for a decade or two and leave them in ruins similar to Cuba.

Mod edit: In the interests of fairness to all posters, can all "negative" style posts please be justified? If as you say "The Missile might - on a good day, with strong westerly blizzard hit somewhere in the USA - and it cannot be excluded that it will actually detonate", justify same. Other posters may think such comments are "racially" motivated otherwise... Cheers AD.

 

[crobato]

Here I've been generous in saying they will build a Phantom - which actually was a very good plane.

I think you're just prejudicial. The Phantom isn't that good a plane. Aerodynamically and performance wise, it is only on par and outmaneuvered by the likes of the MiG-21 and MiG-23. It lacks the same sense of technical dominance the F-15 has over its opponents. The success of the Phantom has a lot to credit for the skill and professionalism of its crews rather than the technical virtues of the plane itself.

The Chinese did build planes that could match the Phantom in performance, the J-8II in speed and altitude, and the JH-7/7A in low, although they were never able to perfect the avionics on both until early this decade ago. I don't think the Phantom can match the turn and roll rates of the J-7E either and it even has problems dogfighting even earlier MiGs like the MiG-17 and MiG-19.

3. They might operate submarines that occationally won't blow up whenever they fire a missile.

And the PLAN has consistently launched missiles from their subs since the eighties. Even the Hans are capable of launching YJ-81s. All the current Song class subs are capable of launching even longer ranged YJ-82 and YJ-83air breathing AshMs.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

I think Ths is just making use of some exaggerated terms to illustrate the relatively poor naval capability of the Chinese military at this point. He doesn't actually mean to offend anyone.

 

[crobato]

It was reported in the Russian Kommersant daily newspaper on Oct 24/06 that Russia and China where finalizing terms for 50 SU-33's at a reported cost of US$ 2.5 Billion. The first two fighters would be delivered to the PLA Navy in 2007~08 for trials and evaluations so it would seem China wants a CV capability. How extensive that capability is to be is anyones guess. I am not a naval expert but 50 Su 33's could equip a few CV's I would say.

That would be good enough to equip a single Varyag.

 

[crobato]

Thats not accurate... if you want to point out PLAN mistakes then say they don't know how to operate diesel engines without killing the crew with carbon monoxide poisoning. Just for the sake of clarity...

Citing accidents as a case for 'poor' training of the crews is in my opinion, bad taste, especially towards the deceased, regardless of any nation. Bad luck simply occurs, and we don't know exactly what happened. For example, there is a nasty steam pipe accident that happened on the USS Frank Cable recently, six sailors are badly injured and one have already died. Stuff like this should not occur but they still do.