Chinese Aircraft Carrier

[Paul in Qatar]

So the Chinese continue to shop for an aircraft carrier. (Why not just build one? But I digress.)

 

As a thought exercise, suppose they got a large-deck carrier. How long would it take to become anything like a sea power? I'm thinking they would need support ships (tankers, underway replenishment), escorts, air wings (and schools for the air wings, and factories to build the special planes). Plus it would take years (how many you think) to raise a generation of senior officers and men who have carrier ops in their blood.

 

Radio, communication techniques, met support, the list seems endless. Sure, getting an aircraft carrier is a big step, but only the first one.

[Guest JamesG123]

I think the current estimate is a decade from now before they have a fully operational CBG and air-wing.

 

I personally don't find this alarming. They have a long coast line, lots of vital national interests in the region and sea lanes, heck, they even have their own sea! Even India has a carrier so why shouldn't they?

[Guest aevans]

Aside from the technicalities, how does a single unit of anything make a nation a "sea power". Maybe a regional littoral power like India or the various Russian fleets. But sea power bears with it the connotation of overseas projection, not just local control.

[Colin]

The smaller Italian/spanish designs seem like a good place to start, not so expensive as a full blown carrier, but a great way to train and learn.

[Guest JamesG123]

Aside from the technicalities, how does a single unit of anything make a nation a "sea power". Maybe a regional littoral power like India or the various Russian fleets. But sea power bears with it the connotation of overseas projection, not just local control.

 

 

15-20 years for that.

[Guest aevans]

15-20 years for that.

 

With what kind of force structure?

[Guest JamesG123]

What ever they want?

 

Probably mimicking US CVBGs.

[swerve]

The smaller Italian/spanish designs seem like a good place to start, not so expensive as a full blown carrier, but a great way to train and learn.

Need a STOVL plane, though. The Chinese don't have that, & there's no sign of them developing one.

[Sikkiyn]

Whatever happened to the Yak 141?

[pikachu]

Whatever happened to the Yak 141?

 

Defunct, along with Yakovlev design bureau. The rumor mill has it that the Chinese recently bought the blueprints for the Yak VTOLs, but not clear whether this refers to the older ones or the -141. In any case, PLANAF is reportedly negotiating for Su-33s, so it's obvious the Chinese are banking on a conventional carrier, not a STOVL one.

[RETAC21]

The smaller Italian/spanish designs seem like a good place to start, not so expensive as a full blown carrier, but a great way to train and learn.

 

As mentioned, they need a Harrier equivalent. It took us more than 10 years to get Principe de Asturias going, the Italians a bit less. If the Chinese have studied Varyag and derived conclussions from it and they have the political will, I imagine they would get their first ship in a similar timeframe, say 2020.

 

While useless for going head to head vs the USN, it would be a useful tool for porjecting power around Africa.

[pikachu]

As mentioned, they need a Harrier equivalent. It took us more than 10 years to get Principe de Asturias going, the Italians a bit less. If the Chinese have studied Varyag and derived conclussions from it and they have the political will, I imagine they would get their first ship in a similar timeframe, say 2020.

 

While useless for going head to head vs the USN, it would be a useful tool for porjecting power around Africa.

 

Useless against today's USN. With the US economy in its current state and a decidedly unmilitaristic (if not anti-military) president in power until 2012, it is quite possible that the 12-carrier USN of today would be a distant memory by 2020.

 

In any case, historically China has built new capital ships (even subs) in pairs, and sometimes in two classes separated by about 2-4 years in start of construction. You can see this in the 168/169 (052B Luyang) and 170/171 (052C Luyang II) destroyers, also in the Song/Yuan class subs. With all capital ship construction projects basically finished by 2007, there is currently space for construction of even larger warships beginning next year. If they follow current trends, the Chinese might start with two Kuznetsov clones in the 2010-2011 period, then ramp up to a catapult-equipped carrier in 2014-2015. Give them ten years to finish each ship (although this being China they might be able to finish sooner), then by 2025 there could be 4 Chinese carriers running around in the Pacific, plus maybe a refurbished Varyag as training ship.

 

Also, since India's Gorshkov deal appears to be unraveling (the Russians are asking for more cash to finish refits) China might even step in to take over the ship, bring it to China for "scrapping", then redeploy it as reserve training ship.

 

I seriously doubt China would try projecting naval power to Africa, though. The Indian Navy (which already has carriers) won't let them.

[Yama]

In any case, historically China has built new capital ships (even subs) in pairs, and sometimes in two classes separated by about 2-4 years in start of construction. You can see this in the 168/169 (052B Luyang) and 170/171 (052C Luyang II) destroyers, also in the Song/Yuan class subs. With all capital ship construction projects basically finished by 2007, there is currently space for construction of even larger warships beginning next year.

 

Said destroyers were ~7000 tons max, and currently largest Chinese-built warship is less than 18 000 tons displacement. Varyag is almost 60 000 tons, so ship of this size would be massive quantum leap for shipbuilding industry. IMO, Chinese are likely to start with something less ambitious. Soviet Navy needed around 25 years to proceed from helicarriers to Kuznetsov, but OTOH, they deliberately took the long way.

 

Many think that current Chinese destroyer projects are essentially experimental. From economic point of view, it makes no sense to have 13 ships divided between six different classes, all with different missiles, propulsion, radars etc. It is noteworthy that this is completely different from what they did in the past - building large classes of destroyers and frigates, even after they had become obsolete.

[pikachu]

Said destroyers were ~7000 tons max, and currently largest Chinese-built warship is less than 18 000 tons displacement. Varyag is almost 60 000 tons, so ship of this size would be massive quantum leap for shipbuilding industry. IMO, Chinese are likely to start with something less ambitious. Soviet Navy needed around 25 years to proceed from helicarriers to Kuznetsov, but OTOH, they deliberately took the long way.

 

Many think that current Chinese destroyer projects are essentially experimental. From economic point of view, it makes no sense to have 13 ships divided between six different classes, all with different missiles, propulsion, radars etc. It is noteworthy that this is completely different from what they did in the past - building large classes of destroyers and frigates, even after they had become obsolete.

 

Agreed that it would be a quantum leap, but for the MIC, not the shipbuilding industry itself. The Chinese have built 100,000+ ton ships in the past and are building some of the world's largest civilian ships today. They certainly have the facilities and know-how to build large hulls. Whether they can build large specialized warship hulls in this scale remains to be seen, but the potential is definitely there. One of the publication models of the new Jiangnan shipyards (IIRC) has a neat little carrier sitting in one of the drydocks. Might just be an overambitious publicity stunt, but might also be an indicator of things to come.

 

In any case, as you mentioned yourself, the Chinese have in the past built large classes of older, obsolete models. The past two decade's trend is itself already a quantum leap compared to the past approach. Each (pair of) ship being built today is experimental, each leapfrogging the previous class in ability and technological input. It wouldn't be surprising for the Chinese to just jump forward to 60,000 tons. It would simply mimic the trend in the private sector.

[Hellfish6]

Agreed that it would be a quantum leap, but for the MIC, not the shipbuilding industry itself. The Chinese have built 100,000+ ton ships in the past and are building some of the world's largest civilian ships today. They certainly have the facilities and know-how to build large hulls. Whether they can build large specialized warship hulls in this scale remains to be seen, but the potential is definitely there. One of the publication models of the new Jiangnan shipyards (IIRC) has a neat little carrier sitting in one of the drydocks. Might just be an overambitious publicity stunt, but might also be an indicator of things to come.

 

In any case, as you mentioned yourself, the Chinese have in the past built large classes of older, obsolete models. The past two decade's trend is itself already a quantum leap compared to the past approach. Each (pair of) ship being built today is experimental, each leapfrogging the previous class in ability and technological input. It wouldn't be surprising for the Chinese to just jump forward to 60,000 tons. It would simply mimic the trend in the private sector.

 

You have interesting and, I suspect, correct analysis of China's capabilities.

[pikachu]

You have interesting and, I suspect, correct analysis of China's capabilities.

 

Nah, Yama is right in that it's quite a far fetch. I'm just stating what the Chinese CAN do, if they optimize their MIC and shore up the political will to go ahead. I myself don't think they're going to do that. Of course, it probably won't be long until someone high up with a bit of imagination braves the tides to propose building aircraft carriers as an economic stimulus - what with the Chinese shipbuilding industry in decline due to overcapacity. China is one of the few countries in the world currently with the means and the excuse to go into wartime spending. They actually NEED all the new toys.

[Josh]

Agreed that it would be a quantum leap, but for the MIC, not the shipbuilding industry itself. The Chinese have built 100,000+ ton ships in the past and are building some of the world's largest civilian ships today. They certainly have the facilities and know-how to build large hulls.

 

Not saying it couldn't happen, but don't mistake the complexity of a warship with a civilian tanker, Ro-Ro, or container ship that is largely empty non-personel related uncompartmentalized space. Those types are largely huge open shells nothing like the complexity of an avaition carrying ship. The *hull* of a CV I'm sure would be no problem, a complete working model much more so. Plus the opperational doctrine and crew skills to man it. Its a steep slope to have an actually opperation capability vs the right toys of the right size. Never the less I"m sure they'll get there in a couple decades barring some kind of internal revolution.

[FlyingCanOpener]

What ever they want?

 

Probably mimicking US CVBGs.

 

Just because you have battlegroups does not a sea power make. Just ask the Imperial French Navy, Kaiserliche Marine and Soviet Navy, just to name a few.

[pikachu]

Just because you have battlegroups does not a sea power make. Just ask the Imperial French Navy, Kaiserliche Marine and Soviet Navy, just to name a few.

 

Imperial French Navy? Napoleon's?

[Guest JamesG123]

Yes, he was refering to Napoleon's navy.

 

Actually you do not have to be the top potato to be "a sea power".

 

I seriously doubt China would try projecting naval power to Africa, though. The Indian Navy (which already has carriers) won't let them

.

 

Depends on how and why they are deploying. If they are projecting power constructively, as in taking part in the anti-piracy patrols off Somalia or UN missions, then there isn't much they can do. I suppose things would get interesting if the Chinese fleet tried to come to support Pakistan against India, but then that is rather far fetched.

[FlyingCanOpener]

Actually you do not have to be the top potato to be "a sea power".

 

No, but you do need the ability to exert sea control over more than your back yard as well as being perfectly comfortable projecting said power around the world if you want to have pretenses of being a sea power. Just because let's say China gets their own CVBG, that doesn't make them a sea power any more than the ABC powers getting dreadnoughts a century ago made them sea powers.

[Yama]

Supposedly a recent image of Varyag, which seems to show renewed activity:

 

 

Wonder what they're doing - removal of SS-N-19 missile tubes? Replacement of machinery components?

[pikachu]

Supposedly a recent image of Varyag, which seems to show renewed activity:

 

 

Wonder what they're doing - removal of SS-N-19 missile tubes? Replacement of machinery components?

 

Roulette table coming in. You just wait until the jackpot machines show up.

[X-Files]

Need a STOVL plane, though. The Chinese don't have that, & there's no sign of them developing one.

 

Hmmmm

 

http://asian-defence.blogspot.com/2010/12/chinas-stealth-helicopter-to-counter-f.html

[JWB]

Hmmmm

 

http://asian-defence.blogspot.com/2010/12/chinas-stealth-helicopter-to-counter-f.html

Avro VZ-9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar