China's Second Aircraft Carrier has Begun Sea Trials

a reply to: anzha

The Communist Chinese Navy has No Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers . Talk about Dead in the Water..............

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Baby steps. It's actually pretty impressive what they've done so far. A long way from an effective force projector, but they are getting the experience they need.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The experience they need is Losing Naval Battles with Inferior Forces............)

Or just, you know, how to maintain a level of naval air operations and integrate them with other surface forces...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: andy06shake

Just about everyone that builds carriers built STOBAR carriers. They're cheaper and faster to build, cheaper to maintain, and require smaller crews.

I would think, one of the advantages with a ramp is also, if they are dead in the water with no steam, they can still launch AC.

a reply to: jacobe001

As long as there is enough wind over the deck. The drawbacks though are that they can't launch at MTOW.

I must ask if carriers, China's the US or other countries could withstand a concerted wartime assault by submarine forces. Seems been few surprises over the years in fleet exercises - exercises that had rules favoring surface fleet participants as I understood it.

IMHO big carriers while admirably serving in peacetime and low intensity conflicts with little to no coordination of opposing forces would have a much harder time in a full on conflict with able opponents.

I think either they'd have to stay within a combined forces umbrella relatively close to mainland such as China or out in deep blue water to negate countries with sizable diesel/electric sub fleets as in US carrier types.

Both modes have downsides in flexibility and offer asymmetric solutions to opponents.

a reply to: Phoenix

One of the things about exercises is that no matter who is involved, no one shows all their cards. No ASW system is perfect, just as no sub is going to get through everything.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Always an interesting subject to say the least, my take- what you said,

Admirals and politicians once again fighting last great war as far as naval assets concerned - reminds me of prewar WW2 battleship reliance.

Chinese carriers are certainly sitting ducks in any major conflict - not just US either as opponent.

U.S. carriers also even though much more difficult task to accomplish - nonetheless big fat juicy targets.

Carriers, especially formed into CBG's are very successful against somewhat cooperative nations not wanting to escalate into full on war that do not possess naval forces worth speaking of.

Since WW2 can anyone show me where carrier forces faced an opponent in aggression that possessed sea/air/land forces capable of defending themselves from a carrier battle group, ie: an honest fight. - I cannot.

This has lulled many to believe that carriers are far more effective than they probably are in any MAJOR conflict with nations possessing any appreciable combined forces capability.

So I think China wasting money and manpower as well as US in carrier construction - either could end up in situation of "its to big to risk" nullifying its use in major conflicts.

I know Im out in proverbial woods on this but seems smaller more numerous ships might be way to go.

a reply to: Phoenix

For the last ten or fifteen years all we hear is "carriers are obsolete". It ranks right up there with the latest invention that makes stealth obsolete. And yet, despite hearing that, just about everyone with any kind of large navy is building them.

So, either the planners are total idiots and are wasting massive amounts of money, or they're still an effective force.

a reply to: Phoenix

Logistics , the Chinese are No Match for the U.S. in that regard , and Never Will be in our Lifetimes.......

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's less that they are obsolete, and more that they represent a huge cost. I'm frankly not convinced it is worth the cost, and neither is the Pentagon, as they've batted around the idea of dropping below the 11 carrier floor imposed by Congress.

A carrier gives you almost absolute sea control over a 150 mi bubble of the ocean. Some force projection out to 700-900 miles. The ocean is pretty big. And this is very expensive. If you consider the mission critical, and don't care about the cost, a super carrier does that. Noone is running large scale carrier operations other than the US because of the cost-benefit trade off.

They are extremely useful, especially in limited, regional conflicts. Also to show the flag like the Great White Fleet -- and for disaster relief.

But the main argument for a CVN is to reach where land-based air cannot and for fleet support against other air arms. You could expand that to nuclear deterrent, but I think the SLBM has overtaken that role handily. The main needs now represent an increasingly niche market compared to several decades ago. They are also increasingly vulnerable to submarines and long-range missiles.

I wonder what flexibility and savings could be achieved by reducing the in-service CVN fleet, expanding the LHA fleet to center a few more surface battle groups with airborne ASW, and expanding underwater operations, and perhaps a fleet air arm to include tankers and strategic air.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Phoenix

Logistics , the Chinese are No Match for the U.S. in that regard , and Never Will be in our Lifetimes.......

Not sure I'd take that bet.

originally posted by: RadioRobert


I wonder what flexibility and savings could be achieved by reducing the in-service CVN fleet, expanding the LHA fleet to center a few more surface battle groups with airborne ASW, and expanding underwater operations, and perhaps a fleet air arm to include tankers and strategic air.

Probably None. You're talking about the DoD.

The question that needs to be ask is if CVNs are the right tool to tackle Chinas A2/AD during the later half of the century. Hint: the answer is not smaller carriers

a reply to: mightmight

The CVN is not the answer. The CVN just creates its own small A2/AD zone. LHA's are not the answer either, but you get more of your own A2/AD threat bubbles with more surface battle groups for a lot less money than a CVN at the cost of real power projection (which is overrated in scope from a CVN, in my opinion anyway).

Spending the rest of the money on more submarines and strategic air gives you the reach, power, flexibility, and survivability that a CSG does not. And it's easier/safer to sustain that projection, and requires a smaller logistical footprint.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Aren't you assuming that the Chinese actually want the CVs for the expansion of their defensive zone? Couldn't it be they want to project power like the US does with their carriers parked off other countries' coasts?

a reply to: anzha

No. I'd assume the opposite. They want to play at the games the US plays at with power projection and their own Great White (Red?) fleet tours. I'm just saying the US could probably get a better return with a different mix and fewer CVN's.

But those same arguments could be made for China's carriers. The amount of investment in creating and sustaining a carrier fleet is out of proportion to the return. How much power do ~30 lightly-loaded J-15's project? How far inland? Not a whole lot and not very far. How long does a Chinese carrier last in full-scale campaign? Not terribly long, I'd guess (unless it is operating under the umbrella of other land-based assets. In which case it isn't truly "projecting power". It's just a cog in an integrated defense). If they spent that investment in expanding their submarine, tanker, and strategic air assets, I'd personally find it more concerning.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: mightmight

The CVN is not the answer. The CVN just creates its own small A2/AD zone. LHA's are not the answer either, but you get more of your own A2/AD threat bubbles with more surface battle groups for a lot less money than a CVN at the cost of real power projection (which is overrated in scope from a CVN, in my opinion anyway).

But does it save money though?
Dont just look at LHA vs CVN, Americas vs Fords but also at the escort vessels. You'd need to protect the LHAs the same way the CVNs are protected. Half a dozen DDG/CGs, 2 SSNs and fleet supply ships in a high threat environment.
Its nice that you can get three Americas for every Ford or whatever. But in reality the neccessary escorts to build independent groups dont exist. So whats the point?
Ignoring of course the fact, that one oversized F-35B Squadron is nowhere close to the potential of a full blown Carrier Air Wing.

a reply to: mightmight

I think if you replace a few one-for-one with Americas, you have the money to buy other things with greater flexibility than the CVN. It is not 3 or 4 Americas for a Ford. It's one or two Americas and 2 or 3 Virginias. Or one America, one Virginia, and more tankers and strategic air assets.

And of course an America with a handful of F-35's doesn't have the firepower. But a CVN doesn't wield much that can't be replaced with other assets. What is the last mission by a CSG that couldn't have been performed by an America, fleet subs, or land -based air? Against a near-peer, they are too vulnerable to get close enough to be useful. Against the third world, it doesn't provide much that isn't capable of being done in other ways. Not enough capability to justify the costs, imo. The irreplaceable CVN mission boils down to sea control, and in blue water, the biggest threats consist of things the biggest threats can be handled by LHA's and expanded assets.

It'll never happen because of the way the sausage is made, but a surface battle group centered around an America with a MEU with an extra Virginia along with more P-8's, tankers, and *gasp* a USN long-range bomber punches a lot heavier than a CVN group and has a lot more flexibility.