Developing carriers is hard!

Fully armed F-18s might get airborne without a cat, but that means they take off with very little fuel on board and have to hit a tanker like RIGHT NOW or RTB and trap. And how much fuel could a tanker stagger into the air without a cat?

Generating a valid sortie without a cat will take some doing.

The RN invented the catapult but had to abandon carriers big enough to have one because their government is mostly an agency for giving away free stuff.

 

Seriously you have to be joking. The F-18 couldn't take off from the QE class without a catapult, I never said it could. I said the QE is big enough to operate F-18's, Rafale or F-35C if it had catapults. So the new carriers we are building aren't too small.

Well the Conservative government in 1963 planned to build carriers of 60,000 tons with cats and traps, along with the P.1154. However Labour get into power a year later and by 1966 everything was cancelled. Again before WW2 ended the Churchill government planned to be 2 more 40,000 ton carriers in the same class as HMS Eagle and HMS Ark Royal, but the Attlee government cancelled them, in favour of 4 25,000 Centaur class carriers, one of which was used in the Falklands, by that same the rest had been scrapped, the lead ship in the class what only in service for 12 years. There is also the 3 Malta class carrier the UK was building before the end of WW2, scrapped by the Attlee government. Then you have the last battleship HMS Vanguard which was only in service for 11 years. So the Conservatives didn't give up building carrier with cats and traps, the Labour party did.

By free stuff do you mean healthcare and education? Which isn't free we all have to pay it with taxes.

 

LOL

I don't think they can catch up period. Even technologically. There is so much supporting tech and infrastructure involved...even if they spent as much as we do (and they don't...not by a very long shot) they would remain decades behind us almost indefinitely. Well, unless we simply stopped development forever.

You could probably catch up quickly with enough money...but it would take enough money to dwarf the US military budget, and no one has that.

 

I guess ultimately come down to where the Chinese think such technology will be in 30 years. And what their strategic needs will be in that time period. Frankly China could conquer a significant fraction of the world with not so much as row boat in their navy. A little bit like the French during the Napoleonic war

 

China certainly does not like not being the boss in the Pacific. Taiwan especially is a sore spot with them. If Taiwan were not an island, it would already be part of the PRC right now.

The US Navy is the main reason they will never invade Taiwan.

 

"China could conquer a significant fraction of the world with not so much as row boat in their navy."

Taxcutter says:
Maritime Siberia and NorK would be easy (although Putin might nuke them). Vietnam? More difficult than you'd think.

Without so much as a rowboat, Taiwan and the PI are safe.

 

Sorry Wiz, TC is absolutely correct. And please allow me to explain why.

Most people have never heard of, nor know anything about the last of the Indochina Wars. And that is the Third Indochina War, or what is otherwise known as the Sino-Vietnamese War.

In short, China decided that it needed to attack Vietnam in 1979. The cause is disputed, some think it was an attempt at conquest, others think it was punishment for Vietnam driving out Pol Pot. But either way, China mobilized 600,000 soldiers, and entered Vietnam with a force of 100,000 soldiers and around 400 tanks. By the end of the war (around 2 months), China had committed over 400,000 ground forces, and over 600 tanks.

How well did they do?

Well, not to well. They showed that they still operated much as they had in the Korean War decades earlier. Moving across in a giant mass, using "Human Wave" tactics in an attempt to swamp any resistance. They threw entire divisions worth of troops at simple objectives, and became hopelessly bogged down. After a week of fighting, most of the front was only 10 miles inside of the Vietnamese border.

And they were not even fighting Vietnamese troops. The Vietnamese military realized that China was hoping to crush their army, so instead the battle was almost entirely fought by around 150,000 members of their militia. The regular Vietnamese Army was instead held in reserve to protect the capitol of Hanoi.

At the end of this 2 month long war, China reached the "gates of Hanoi". At this point they declared victory and withdrew back to China. Leaving behind over 400 destroyed tanks, and 40,000 dead. Vietnamese losses were roughly half of that.

*****

And this is consistent throughout the history of the PLA. The PLA really is not all that effective of a military. Logistically it is a nightmare, with over a dozen different models of tanks in service (their primary tank dates back to the 1950's). And their artillery is not much better, a hodge-podge of whatever they bought-made at any one time, with many pieces dating back to World War II.

And the same is true of their Air Force. Most people fail to grasp the logistical issues that would actually face the PLA in the battlefield. The Type 58/59 is still the most common tank of the Chinese Army. As the name suggests, this was first fielded in 1959, and was built until 1980. Essentially a Chinese made T-54, they made over 9,000 of them for domestic use. And over 6,000 are still in service to this day.

Then you have the Type 62, 400 still in service.
Type 69/79, 200 still in service.
Type 80/85/88, around 600 still in service.
Type 90, rejected by the PRC, believed to have 10 in service.
Type 96, 2,500 in service.
Type 98/99, 500 in service.

That is 7 different models of tanks, spanning half a century of design, and all are in service at the same time. Logistical nightmare does not even begin to cover what it would be like in an actual battlefield to keep those all operating. Not to mention the fact that the most common tank is over 60 years old!

Of course, the PLA is not really designed for invasion. That is obvious when you look at how poorly it has performed in this manner. Instead it is designed for holding down it's own population. A Type 58 tank may be a joke when sent out against the military of another nation, but it is a perfect tool to use against your own unarmed population.



Yes, those are Type 58 tanks, still in service in 1989. I laugh to myself every time I see that photograph, because it shows what the real role of the PLA is. Now imagine the United States, if we entered the Gulf War with the M41 Tank.



The Type 58 and M41 are actually of a similar generation. But by 1989 the US only used the M1A1 Abrams (other then 3 Battalions of M60 that the Marines were already preparing to phase out when that war started). Yet that is still their Main Battle Tank to this day.

*****

Largely, the Chinese Army is a paper tiger. Designed for internal use, almost useless against any major ground war. In fact, in all of it's history the only real victory the PLA has ever had against a serious enemy was that against the Republic of China during their Civil War.

This is the reality, and not the propaganda of the Chinese Army. It is really not that effective of a fighting force.

 

The PLA is a very large, corrupt and inefficient police army.

As lame as the Russians are, they at least have a field army (one designed to fight other nations' armies rather than oppressing their own people). Tactically they'd cut the Chinese up. Logistically the Russians are in trouble if the chinese can make a lightning grab of the Kultuk Gorge at the south end of Lake Baikal.

The Chinese could handle Fatty with no problem. Whether they want to grasp that nettle is another question.

 

I am not debating the Chinese fighting ability or the standard of their equipment. Merely pointing out that China has access to Eurasia and Africa without the need for a navy

 

Really, Africa?

Sorry, the Silk Road is long gone.

 

Are you suggesting Africa can not be reached by land from either Europe or Asia?

 

Japan and the Pinnacle Islands too.

 

No surprise here. China is infamous for its low quality defective products.

 

The irony is that many of these products are not even theirs...they are bought or stolen from other nations.

 

No, you don't.

http://www.raeng.org.uk/prizes/mitchell/pdf/Fleet_Introduction_Article.pdf

 

No, that simply that I have a better chance of jumping to the moon then China has of reaching it with an army.

If something does not apply to a discussion, it is really foolish to bring it up.

 

Maybe stolen from you too?

If it is so easy to steal anything, what's the use of looking for a job? You might as well go stealing every day. Everybody will go stealing too, if stealing is so easy.

If you claim that your things are stolen by the same thief all the time, there must be something wrong with you. Who is more useless, you or the thief? There lies your so-called irony.

God Save The Queen. God Save Your Soul.

 

Yes, I know our almighty Wizard from Oz can perform more miracles than Merlin. You can even reach the White House by going through my house but....you must get my permission first.

 

Dear Mushroom, when the early European settlers landed in the New Continent, some of your ancestors might have also called them "paper tigers". While they did not hide their disdain of the settlers, your other ancestors might harbour undue fear of the immigrants.

This is exactly the feeling of most Americans towards China today. Their attitude towards China swings wildly like a pendulum from one extreme to the other, from disdain (like you) to overblown phobia (like Wizard From Oz).

It would be good for world peace if those people at the Pentagon share your view and see China as a “paper tiger”. Then our ears would not be bombarded all the while by the American disinformation about the so-called China threat.

US fears over China nuclear weapons
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e81fc48-0a24-11dc-93ae-000b5df10621.html#axzz2Wy7JabLN

If that is "the real role of the PLA" as claimed by you, and if that really happens in the future, I am sure the US will be laughing. However, on such a gigantic scale as China, the man-made catastrophe will be at least one thousand times of the Syrian civil war. Chinese refugees will be flooding all over the world. The US and the West will not be talking of human rights and accept any of the refugees. It will be a calamity for the whole world. It won't be a laughing matter for Uncle Sam.

 

Good quote. I am looking forward to the day when you can lead your people like Moses to free them from their bondage so that they can regain their rightful place as owners and masters of their land.

 

No one has figured out what purpose China's carriers will be used for. Surface strike, land strike, anti submarine, sea lane control, amphibious assault support, etc. ? But they have probably twenty years to figure it out and gain, learn and become efficient.

The PLA-Navy will challenge the U.S. Navy but probably not for another twenty years down the road. Most likely snaring will be in the South China Sea and probably over the disputed Parcel and Partly islands.

The question being asked, will the U.S. Navy be able to fight twenty years from now ? Under the current administration (Obama) our navy is taking a huge hit today that will affect our national security ten, twenty or thirty years from now. The Obama administration refuses to look beyond the current worlds situation and is more concerned of changing the face of our military by using the military for social engineering, dumbing down all branches of our military services in the name of political correctness than training for war and winning. Every time the political left has used our military for social engineering experimentations, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen bleed and die.

>" It will take less time for China to learn how to effectively operate aircraft carriers than it took the U.S., the commander of the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic air arm, Rear Adm. Ted Branch said Wednesday.

“They will learn faster than we did and they will leverage our lessons,” Branch said during a panel at the at the EAST: Joint War fighting 2013 symposium in Virginia Beach, Va.

The U.S. Navy’s education in carrier aviation came at a high price. From 1949 to 1988, “the Navy and Marine Corps lost almost twelve thousand airplanes of all types
(helicopters, trainers, and patrol planes, in addition to jets) and over 8,500 aircrew,” according a section of the book “One Hundred Years of U.S. Navy Airpower” by Robert C. Rubel.



The Chinese, according to Branch, will not have to pay nearly as dear a cost.
“They probably watched ‘Top Gun,’ he said.
“They see how it works.”

In November the People’s Liberation Army Navy flew and landed its first J-15s from their carrier Liaoning, a converted Russian ship the PLAN put into active service in late 2011.

But the PLAN will unlikely be proficient in carrier operations for several more years.
“They have the advantage of starting with more modern technology but it’s still a tough nut to crack to learn how to do this business,” Branch said.
&#8220;They still have a lot of learning to do before they have a viable capability.&#8221; "<
Continue reading. -> http://news.usni.org/2013/05/16/adm...learn-carrier-ropes-faster-than-u-s#more-3230

China Carrier Starts Second Round of Jet Tests

The People&#8217;s Liberation Army Navy has conducted a second round of jet tests aboard its aircraft carrier with its J-15 carrier-based fighter on Wednesday, according to a report from the Xinhua news agency.

Wednesday&#8217;s test of the J-15 aboard Liaoning, follow a November round of flights of the J-15 in which the aircraft successfully landed and launched from the 50,000 ton former Soviet carrier.

Liaoning embarked last week from homeport Qingdao on a round of, &#8220;scientific experiments and sea training,&#8221; according to PLAN officials &#8212; the first blue water cruise for the carrier since February.

http://news.usni.org/2013/06/19/china-carrier-starts-second-round-of-jet-tests

 

So if I disdain the capabilities of their military, I am therefore a racist?

Sorry my friend, I only look at their military and it's capabilities, I could not care if it was the Army of China, or the Army of Canada. Military capabilities and logistics are something I am very fair and impartial about. And obviously since you can't shoot down my analysis, you attack me as potentially being racist, very nice.

Uhhh, whatever. But yes.

 

Nobody attacks you as a racist, just comparing your disdainful attitude towards the Chinese as being seated at the extreme end of a Viking ship in an amusement park ride. Very exciting, isn't it?

Anyway, I hope you can be the US Defence Chief one day. Continue with your disdainful attitude towards the Chinese when you are in charge of defence, and there will be enduring peace for the whole world.

Viking ship korean amusement park ride
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XABM5Z3xVgg

Better to remain as the Prince of Egypt than to emerge as Moses.

 

The Pentagon should have classified "Top Gun" under "top secret" and limited the audience to a few selected US naval officials. It's too late to regret for the oversight.

 

China has played the West for fools.