Chinese Carrier Lacks Fighters

The Diplomat ^ | May 5, 2011 | David Axe

[sukhoi-30mki]

J-15

Z-8 AEW

[sukhoi-30mki]

Z-8 AEW

[poindexter]

Looks like a big slow-moving target to me.

[mylife]

Carrier ready planes?

A mear after thought.
What could go wrong?

It is obvious that the chicoms have us on the ropes with their stunning naval technology./s

[allmost]

That tail in Pakistan should accelerate them 20+ years.

[lacrew]

“But that still leaves aerial refueling and electronic warfare as critical gaps”

I watched a 12 part series called ‘Carrier’. One night, they had a very difficult landing; and, lots of refueling was going on. No refueling capability could be problematic.

[GonzoGOP]

Lacking the diverse air wing of American and French carriers, in the near term Shi Lang will be as limited as Admiral Kuznetsov. Her fighters will have poor range because they can’t be refueled in mid-air. They will be all but blind, guided only by their own radars and those of Shi Lang herself. And they will be vulnerable to enemy air defenses.

However they will still be way ahead of the air wings the Brits deployed in the Falklands. And those were sufficient to kick the heck out of Argentina. So against anyone but the big US flattops this will be sufficient. And the US is about to be out of the power projection business due to our debt load.

[RexBeach]

I thought they were gonna use ultra-lights?

[popdonnelly]

Obama will sell ‘em some.

[popdonnelly]

Carrier planes have distinct requirements, foremost being the ability to take a pounding. Maintenance is also an issue.

[Vroomfondel]

ping

[Polybius]

It is obvious that the chicoms have us on the ropes with their stunning naval technology./s

Everything starts somewhere.

It is not today's China that I worry about. I worry about the future China.

In the 1970's, when Nixon opened relations with China, China was an economically backward, industrial pygmy. Today, China finances U.S. Government deficit spending and is the manufacturing giant where the computer keyboard you are now typing on and half the stuff in your house came from.

In 1853, when Admiral Perry opened relations with Japan, the Japanese had never seen a steam engine before. By 1876, the Japanese had their first steam warship and, by 1905, Japan had annihilated the Russian Baltic Fleet at the Battle of Tsushima.

By the end of December 7, 1941, Japan had annihilated the U.S. battleship fleet at Pearl Harbor.

[12Gauge687]

Looks vaguely like a Sikorsky HH-3 Jolly Green Giant. More than likely, they took ownership of the British choppers in Hong Kong, when the British lease ended in 1997.

[sukhoi-30mki]

No, it’s the Chinese variant of the French Super Frelon sold to them in the 70s.

[oldsalt]

All this noise about one Chinese excuse for an aircraft carrier amuses me.

Having served in the U.S.Navy for 26 years aboard seven different carriers,with a dozen major deployments, running for my life on the flight deck,gives me some bona fides regarding carrier ops.

The Soviets observed us closely for the better part of forty years and the Kuznetsov class was the best they could come up with when trying to develop their naval aviation program.

They failed,big time. What makes anyone think that a cast -off Soviet carrier will somehow emerge as a potent carrier with advanced war-making capabilities?

Nobody can come even close to being able to master the everyday details of flight deck ops overnight...or even in a few years.

Carrier operations are both an art and a science,which would take the Chinese at least a generation or two to gain anything like proficiency in.

In my next rant I'll address inconsequential things like shipboard damage control,re-fueling at sea and night ops.

Armchair experts should spend a little more time pondering practical things instead of hand wringing over chicken little scenarios.

[Last Dakotan]

I listened to some fools in the 70's tell me that the Japanese machine tool industry wouldn't amount to much because they couldn't make a tool changer. They now completely rule that industry.

Then in the 80's they told me the Japanese couldn't make a V-8. One word - Lexus.

[Polybius]

Nobody can come even close to being able to master the everyday details of flight deck ops overnight...or even in a few years. Carrier operations are both an art and a science,which would take the Chinese at least a generation or two to gain anything like proficiency in.

See Post 12.

Thinking one generation or two generations or three generations ahead is exactly how the Chinese think. You and I will never have to worry about the Chinese Navy in our lifetime but our grandchildren will.

How does the current U.S. Commander-in-Chief think?

"I will bankrupt the future America of my chldren with a crushing debt today so that I can buy the votes needed to get me reelected next year."

[TalonDJ]

That tail in Pakistan should accelerate them 20+ years.

ahah! No. Just... no. Seriously.

[CodeToad]

“he Soviets observed us closely for the better part of forty years and the Kuznetsov class was the best they could come up with when trying to develop their naval aviation program.

They failed,big time. What makes anyone think that a cast -off Soviet carrier will somehow emerge as a potent carrier with advanced war-making capabilities?”

Well, as an engineer that has been involved with the Chinese issue for 20+ years, I can say they are not paying attention from afar like the Soviets did. These guys have their people inside American companies and have been sending direct engineering specifications, plans, and procedures back to China.

[tanknetter]

To enable true, long-range carrier operations, the People's Liberation Army Navy still needs to develop, build and field carrier-capable airborne command-and-control aircraft plus aerial tankers and electronic-warfare planes. Without these so-called ‘enablers,’ Shi Lang and her J-15s represent little more than training assets, with few real-world applications.

Mr. Axe apparently suffers from a bad case of what psychologists (of which I am not) call "projection".

Put simply, he assumes that the ChiComs want to use their carrier force (assuming they build other carriers) to project power globally as the US does.

I believe he is seriously mistaken. First, the ChiComs think in the very long term. That means that the main mission of the Varyag is to act as the incubator of China's carrier capability. A 21st Century analog to the USN's Langley (CV-1). They understand that it's going to take them DECADES to figure out how to effectively operate one of these things.

Second, the ChiComs have no intention of sailing their CVs out into the Pacific to challenge the USN's CVNs in WWII-style carrier vs carrier combat (updated for the 21st Century). What they DO plan to do is use their carrier capability aggressively to intimidate Taiwan and their regional neighbors. This doesn't require a robust organic AEW/EW capability ... just that the carrier operates in scenarios where one isn't really needed, or one can be provided via land-based options.

At the very most, the ChiComs are expecting to operate on a par with their main regional rival (US being a global rival that they confront primarily through economic means): India. India has a long history of respectable fixed-wing CV ops, most recently with the Sea Harrier-equipped former HMS Hermes ... and in the future with the MiG-29K-equipped former Gorshkov (Kiev-class carrier modified into a smaller version of Kuznetzov/Varyag).

IIRC, India is not developing the kinds of robust and organic AEW/EW capability Mr. Axe seems to think the ChiComs need to be an "effective" carrier navy either. So we can assume an initial situation where there is rough parity between China and India (slight edge to the Chinese because their ships will carry more of the big-a** Russian SSMs), but where China can still dominate the rest of the Western/South Pacific ... so long as the US doesn't bring it's carriers to the game.