Posted on 01/08/2010 1:42:41 AM PST by myknowledge
There's a major feud going on in the Chinese Navy. On one side, you have admirals who want to put most construction effort into nuclear submarines (both SSN attack boats, and SSBNs carrying ballistic missiles) and new surface ships. This is a for strategic fleet. The SSNs and surface ships would be for keeping hostile fleets away from China, while the SSBNs can put the fear of China into the United States, as there care currently no Chinese ballistic missiles that can hit all of the United States.
The other group of admirals, who appear to be getting their way, want to build aircraft carriers. These would be used to control distant waters, like the long sea routes that bring China raw materials (especially oil) and allow exports to reach world markets. The most critical route passes through the Indian Ocean, on the way to the Persian Gulf and Africa. China and India have not always been on the best of terms, and a fleet of carriers is seen as the only way of confronting India with something short of nuclear weapons. In the long term, this carrier fleet could eventually challenge that of the United States.
The United States prefers the Chinese carrier strategy, as it takes a long time to build carriers and train the ship and air crews to a useful level of competency. By building carriers, China will spend less money on building more and better submarines. That suits the United States just fine.
China isn't looking for a war with anyone, especially the United States. What keeps the Chinese people happy right now is a thriving economy. That requires good relations with the United States, but not a whole lot from India. But since so much of Chinas seaborne trade goes through India's back yard, something much be done to insure the security of that route.
Also, send a carrier or one of the support ships through a mined area, you’ve got trouble. Send a battleship through, and as long as someone is standing by with a broom and a paintbrush, you’ll never even notice.
MARK!
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
If you are currently a serving officer, I hope nobody in the sub community knows your FReepname. That has got to be considered either treason or heresy, probably both.
More importantly I don’t see the PLAN have a need to project power like that...
So, it would be nice if the PLAN wasted its money on CVNs instead of improved SSNs and SSKs.
Actually, given the "economic colonies" the Chinese are prestently establishing in South America and Africa, I can see precisely why they think they have a need for aircraft carriers to project power. It's not to compete with the USA, but to protect those raw material sources from encroachment or piracy.
You’re right. Didn’t think of it that way.
The IJN had flattops during WWII, and in the early stages of the PTO, IJN pilots in A6M Zeroes trumped over Allied pilots in their land-based aircraft.
By the end of the decade, we would expect to see a few flattops with PLAN pilots flying Chinese built Su-33 Flanker-D knockoffs.
AV-MF Su-33 Sea Flankers.
Nor has any Essex Class or larger aircraft carrier.
Here's the fact: as any submariner will tell you, no surface ship is invulnerable. But neither is any major naval ship defenseless. These defenses range from anti-submarine and anti-missile equipment, to the deterrent effect of telling your enemy: if you sink my capital ship, I'll nuke your city.
That may explain why there have been no major sea battles in nearly 65 years. So any discussions about which ships are vulnerable to what kinds of attack are -- as of today -- theoretical and hypothetical.
So, in an era of limited warfare against terrorist entities and failed states, what kinds of ships make the most sense?
Answer: ships that can deliver all-weather, all-terrain, all-mission types troops, equipment and ordnance anywhere, any time.
Sounds like aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships to me. Add in some subs, cruisers & destroyers to protect them, and what do you have? A modern navy, I'd say.
If the U.S. Navy were to engage in a battle against the PLAN, the CBGs would be in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. It is a harsh reality no USN admiral would want to face in the event of a Sino-American nation-state conflict.
Their relatively low cost can make it easy for 3rd world nations to acquire these deadly weapons that could keep CBGs at bay. It is a highly effective weapon that delivers a big bang for a moderate sized buck.
The Fasthawk would have been far superior to the triad of ASCMs aforementioned above had it entered service.
An expert (which I am not, of course) could list dozens of weapons which "are capable of obliterating a CBG."
But for every threat there are countermeasures, some visible and well-known, others not so.
And where there are no countermeasures today, you can be sure work is ongoing in labs across the country.
And there is a pretty simple measure to determine if our countermeasures -- all considered together -- have been effective.
The measure is this:
Considering that military weakness invites attack, how many and what kinds of attacks have perceived weaknesses of US naval vessels invited lately?
;-)
None of which are unique capabilities, and the espionage they can conduct is extremely limited. Three feet above the wave tops isn't exactly the preferred placement for cameras or antennas, effective horizon is about 6 miles.
Just adds extra versatility to the region of battle. Also the Ohio Class Guided Missile Submarines, can carry more Tomahawks than any other ship in the fleet. Submarines do well at anything they do. I won’t discuss the espionage any further, because there are thing submarines can do that satellites and aerial photos cannot capture. However, what submarines can do better than anyone else is hunt other submarines.
The trouble with trying to make do with only submarines, is that there is so much that they can't do at all. That is my underlying point. To debate having submarines vice aircraft carriers is like debating having tanks without infantry.
I am definately not saying we should only have submarines. I love aircraft carriers and what they do. I plan on attending the decommissioning of the USS ENTERPRISE CVN 65. That where I was assigned when I was enlisted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.