RoovialkThe question is efficient in what role. American style imperial carriers would be inefficient in the sea control role. It would be an over-commitment of resources. Admiral Zumwalt realized committing all USN resource, enormous but still with limits, into super sized CATOBAR carriers would be an inefficient use of resources. Moreover, a small number of expensive imperial carriers can’t be everywhere at once, therefore leaving the USN unable to fulfill its global mission.
An Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) can perform many of the Sea Control missions you are thinking about thereby freeing up the carrier battle groups for more difficult tasks.
The Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) is a United States Navy concept introduced in the early 1990s, based on the Naval Expeditionary Task Force. The U.S. Navy fields 9 Expeditionary Strike Groups and 10 Carrier Strike Groups, in addition to surface action groups. ESGs allow US naval forces to provide highly movable and self-sustaining forces for missions in various parts of the globe.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224319[/ATTACH]
RoovialkPLAN’s main mission to defend against imperialist aggression in its own backyard. Which means PLAN must present enough of a anti-shipping threat keep USN carrier battlegroups sufficiently far away from the Chinese coast so prevent them from operate efficiently against Chinese mainland targets.
The PLAN’s first mission is to ensure the survival of the Chinese state. That means trying to protect China’s vital sea lanes from interdiction. Unfortunately the task the PLAN is saddled with is nearly impossible in the current timeframe and for the near to mid future. They will be stretched too thin and do not have the world wide basing to perform their mission.
Now back to the geographic constrains, in order to threaten USN carriers, Chinese anti-shipping assets much operate close to or even beyond the first island chain. Which many geographic choke points in the first island chain, PLAN submarines would have a far more difficult time to penetrate the barriers to get at the USN. Therefore PLAN cannot adopt the Soviet submarine based anti-shipping doctrine. PLAN must fight its way through or at least close to the choke points to threaten the USN. In that scenario, the more flexible nature of the USN carrier doctrine is logical for the PLAN to adopt.
And you need to add that the PLAN does not have the experience to perform worldwide deployments. Also please define the chokepoints you see that the PLAN would close that would threaten American mainland and society.
RoovialkK-278 at least had some survivors, unlike the USS Thresher, lost with all hands. heartless Powerpoint wielding efficiency experts run the US military. human life is cheap to them.
593 Thresher was lost in 1963. She was the first of a new class of sub that defined how modern subs were to be built and suffered loss during a shakedown cruise. Since that time the Russian navy has lost six (6) subs the last being the Krusk. The loss of the Thresher begot the SUBSAFE program.
Since SUBSAFE began in 1963, only one submarine, the non-SUBSAFE-certified USS Scorpion (SSN-589), has been lost. The Russians as I mentioned earlier have lost six (6)
The thing you need to understand is that submarines are inherently dangerous and the loss of ANY boat and crew is regrettable no matter what country suffers that loss
SUBSAFE: On 10 April 1963, while on a deep test dive about 200 miles off the northeast coast of the United States, USS Thresher (SSN-593) was lost with all hands. The loss of the lead ship of a new, fast, quiet, deep-diving class of submarines led the Navy to re-evaluate the methods used to build its submarines. A “Thresher Design Appraisal Board” determined that, although the basic design of the Thresher class was sound, measures should be taken to improve the condition of the hull and the ability of submarines to control and recover from flooding casualties.
Thresher did not die in vain
Roovialkfor fermenting international terrorism. NSA is all watching and all knowing. better not be planning on flying anytime soon.
Please return to the subject of the PLAN. Save the other stuff for the late night horror movies
RoovialkYou mean like how Iraq and Afghanistan was militarily weak? What those countries don’t have that China does is China can destroy you economically. Really, if the US and its allies were in such a superior position over China, why haven’t they done anything to gang up against China? Sounds like China does have something over you. You also forget the US can’t take casualties. That tends to happen with countries that think their lives are more important. Because when it comes down to it you can think you’re superior all you want but the same things that kill your enemy kill you too. That’s why Americans suffered through the Vietnam Syndrome for so long even though only tens of thousand of Americans died compared to the millions Vietnam lost.
Why should they gang up on China? What would be the purpose? What would cause the world to gang up on China?
RoovialkVital interests? Let me ask you, would you rather watch thousand of American soldiers die oversea to defend American oil interests or would you rather drive a smaller fuel efficient car or maybe the horror take a bus so American mothers don’t have to lose their sons and American children don’t lose their fathers in meaningless foreign wars? Which are your vital interests?
I think the subject is the PLAN. Not what choices I make
Roovialkdo you have any idea how stupid your idea is? starting planting mines off Africa, the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Mallaca, the navies of the entire world will come after you. keep talking that, remember NSA is listening, you may just get some government visitors soon.
Oh please! What does the NSA want with me? Answer: Nothing. Anyway they know where they can find me. I ain’t scared
RoovialkIt is a fascinating scenario for military techno-thrillers, but unfortunately we are far from such a situation in the real world, and even if a scenario were to arise that may threaten China’s energy lines (keeping in mind they are massively diversifying their energy imports as well), China isn’t going to march into a sovereign country of their own accord and start ordering people about.
Neither you or I know for certain what China would do if some calamity happened in some distant land, i.e. Angola and suddenly Chinese society was threatened with collapse due to shortages.
By the way, there is a vast difference between your original statement of “Any disruption in the Chinese oil lifeline would spell disaster for China,” and actually saying how vast a disruption would be, e.g.: interrupting the entire oil flow from an entire country. Obviously if you were to cut an entire country like Angola or Saudi Arabia out of China’s energy pie then yeah, things are gonna get awkward, but you don’t simply do that overnight and there are obviously contingencies in place to both prevent and to recover from such situations.
These African countries are unstable due to the nature of their authoritarianism governments. And the Chinese in Africa due to certain manners of treatment of Africans have begun to **** Africans off
“….Some Africans have become resentful, though, unhappy with unbalanced relationships in which China has taken proprietorship of African natural resources using Chinese labor and equipment without transferring skills and technology. “China takes our primary goods and sells us manufactured ones. This was also the essence of colonialism,” Lamido Sanusi, the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, wrote in the Financial Times earlier this year”
Chinese Copper Mining Operations Halted by Zambia’s Environmental Agency (December 2013) http://www.ibtimes.com/chinese-copper-mining-operations-halted-zambias-environmental-agency-1501396
So what I am saying here is that the Chinese are moving all over Africa like locusts and the Africans are starting to become upset as to how they are being treated by the Chinese. This has bearing on this thread because the movement of these vital resources travel by sea from Africa to China. If tensions break out between African countries and China remember that you heard it here first
It almost seems like you’re more interested in expounding on the scenario of a disastrous situation for China that would force it into a rash decision rather than thinking about just how realistic that scenario is.
Don’t put the blame on me for these problems. Blame the heavy handedness of the Chinese for the problems.
RoovialkUlyanovsk kept the ski jump as your picture illustrates. Ski jump is inherently safer than cat launches. In socialist countries, where human life is more valued, the welfare ans safety of the soldiers are important considerations. Note how late Soviet SSN all included large crew escape modules, which China is also beginning to fit on its latest submarines.
Considering the unreliable performance of Soviet subs escape modules were considered necessary. That Mike Class sub, K-278 Komsomolets had to use its escape capsule when she sank in the Barents Sea. And there have been several others
RoovialkWrong, USN nuclear ships are steam ships, not electric. Steam is used wherever possible in ship operations
That’s not what the web says about nuclear ships:
“…Operation of a civil or naval ship power plant is similar to land-based nuclear power reactors. A sustained nuclear reaction in the reactor produces heat that is used to boil water. The resulting steam spins a turbine. The turbine shaft may be coupled through a gearbox speed reducer to the ship’s propeller, or in a turbo-electric drive system may run a generator that supplies electric power to motors connected to the propellers…”
Better check your facts again
RoovialkIf some “pirates” started planting mines in busy international shipping lanes. PLAN won’t have to do anything. USN or more likely JSDMF will rush to clear the mines.
In some distant place like off the coast of Angola where most of the trade goes to China, there would be little incentive to rush down there to perform mine sweeping duties. In the Persian Gulf- Yes. Other places not so fast
It could even turn out to be a tactic to put pressure on China to back off with some action they are doing in the South China or East China sea.
And to ask the JSDMF to help after China has said what it said about Japan might not play well with the Japanese. They are a proud people and take insults seriously.
RoovialkWell that’s the entire point. I doubt they’ll need an entire ship dedicated to it, the entire architecture should be able to be tested on land before being fitted onto the final ship. I don’t think the RN developed a test ship before building Type 45 or the USN did before building Zumwalt.
The Brits wrote the book on carriers with several innovations that make modern carriers possible. And the US Navy with its extensive experience of operating nuclear surface ships were right there with what it meant to operate an electric ship. The PLAN will have to demonstrate that they CAN operate an electric ship and so far there is little evidence that they are pursuing the line of thinking.
Let me know when they get there.
RoovialkYou overemphasize the importance of individual strands to China’s greater economic interests in Africa.
Pictures remember you saying South Sudans crisis was something china simply couldn’t stomach and it would have to send in troops or something.
While I agree that china will definitely seek to expand its capabilities to defend its interests in Africa, it isn’t like a rebellion or uprising is making them tremble in their boots and make them deploy a naval fleet to restore order.
Looking at this oil chart tell me how long Chinese society could function if oil from the Sudan AND Angola were interrupted? And Angola is even further away than the Sudan. China would have a terrible time making up shipments from just those two countries. And the weak link is that these shipments have to travel by sea through several choke points to get to China
A few mines placed by who-knows-who could spoil China’s whole day Suppose some state-sponsored group posing as “pirates” and using a few mines obtained on the international arms black market from Libya stocks, or even WW2 German mines stocks were planted in straits Chinese oil had to transit in times of tension. Or off the coast of Angola to bottle up Chinese oil traffic. What would China do? What could they do? They would have to deploy naval assets immediately to keep their vital oil lifeline open. Its a fascinating scenario.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224286[/ATTACH]
RoovialkThe fact that both India and China plan on equipping future Carriers with Catapults speaks volumes in my book………
Agreed
RoovialkThere is so much ignorance in this single sentence I’m not sure where to begin, but I’ll give it a shot.
1: what does “carrier business” mean, does it mean building carriers or operating carriers??
2: because if you mean building carriers, then there is very little difference between STOBAR and CATOBAR design and construction apart from the complexities of the internal work necessary for a catapult of course, and that added complexity is far from enough to tip the balance between STOBAR vs CATOBAR, especially if they’ve already mastered catapults. If you’re saying they are choosing STOBAR because they haven’t mastered catapult technology yet, then that’s the statement you should have said instead of a generalizing vague statement like “carrier business is not as easy as it looks”
3: if you mean operating carriers, then I assume you are implying they are using the “lessons” from operating the liaoning over the year to facilitate their next generation carrier configuration choice.
3A: this statement might make sense, if it were realistic that they could make such a significant decision between CATOBAR and STOBAR in the space of a year contingent on the liaoning crew’s response.
3B: this statement also implies that operating a CATOBAR carrier must be more difficult than a STOBAR carrier of similar size, which is obviously ridiculous because the only difference is that of the crew maintaining catapults and the entire process of launching an aircraft, which, while it adds a layer or two of complexity on top of a STOBAR carrier’s overall operating complexity, is obviously not so great enough to suggest the PLAN would go for STOBAR rather than CATOBAR on the basis of “operating difficulty,” especially not when a catapult offers so many advantages over a ski jump as we’ve already discussed
4: I take exception to the part “not as easy as it looks,” because this implies the PLAN thought operating carriers was easy and frankly everything they’ve been doing from towing varyags hulk to dalian to now, have shown that they have respected how difficult operating a carrier is.
1- That would be operating carriers
2- Agreed building ship is building a ship
So ultimately, if your statement is ill informed, then what may be the reason for the PLAN desiring a STOBAR carrier first?
Well it may have to do with the maturity of their catapult technology. We know they’ve been pursuing EMALS for years, but chances are it isn’t ready yet. And the PLAN aren’t bothering with steam catapults, so possibly their only option is STOBAR for the foreseeable future, depending on when they want a carrier and how desperate they are for catapult capability.
The PLAN is building a STOBAR carrier first for the same reason the Russians built one first. They lack knowledge on how to run catapults and of course running a large warship like a carrier.
Further, depending on the propulsion of their carrier, they will have the option to develop a carrier akin to the QE class which can be easily modified for future EMALS once the technology is ready. The benefit of EMALS is it requires less internal piping and other such nonsense compared to a steam catapult, and it draws energy directly from generators/IEPS.
Lets talk when the PLAN builds an electric ship. Even a test ship.
Sign In
