Chinese aircraft carrier program

The US navy during the WW2 could have sustain even a total destruction of its forces in Pearl harbour. They were building ship very fast and had hundreds of them.

If the USN carriers weren't at sea, their loss would have pronged the war, to say the least. CVs take a long time to build & outfit.
Type 003 pics: https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1209138278143873025

To have 2 combat ready & deployed 24/7 at sea in a crisis, at least 6 r needed. Also, 1-2 could be used as decoys to draw forces away from the main action; having them at sea beyond the 1st Island Chain will help to locate hostile CSGs &/ keep them farther away from Taiwan & the SC Sea.

No offense meant, but to use two aircraft carriers as decoys... that is crazy...

they r becoming a global empire; ships r needed to escort CV/Ns, protect SLOCs, islands, EEZ, SSBN bastions, interests, citizens, for diplomacy, SAR, C4IR, disaster relief, & research.

I totally agree, but producing dozens of ships and carriers and subs will lead to rapid growth in potential, but unless the Navy grows with it and learns to manage and control its resources, it is going to look rather more impressive than it actually is. Equally as new hypersonic missiles are deployed having a huge navy is not going to be all that valuable any more... an example would be like comparing a guerilla army and a colonial army... one is largely on foot and can disappear quickly... it is mobile over short distance but as no tactical mobility or strategic mobility... the VC couldn't really move all their forces to concentrate in one area for an attack and then move them back when done, but then that was also an advantage because when US troops moved in Vietnam they would either be in helicopters or vehicles... which these days would be vulnerable to attack using a variety of weapons... that is not to say the guerillas are better off but the motorised side needs to be careful... and clever and use good tactics to get the most of their mobility and fire power.

Not comparable. The US navy during the WW2 could have sustain even a total destruction of its forces in Pearl harbour. They were building ship very fast and had hundreds of them.

What would they have done in the case of a Japanese invasion of Hawaii?

You can say such a landing would be stopped... the British arrogantly believed they would stop the Japs in all sorts of places.... till they didn't.

France has only 1 CdG, 2 mistral and around 10 modern frigates. A sneaky attack on the CdG and french have no more power projection tools. Then Chinese could even take our islands in the Pacific.

The real question is... can they do serious damage and do more than just damage some ships.... can they sink more than one vessel... and would they be prepared to actually do that... as mentioned the french surface ships could fall back to defensive positions and let their subs do the work.

Another question is... what criteria does france have for the use of their nuclear weapons and does china have any ballistic missiles that can reach Paris?

But we are getting ahead of ourselves... China has little more reason to attack France as they have to attack Russia... it is just another American wet dream... I doubt America would care if Paris gets nuked or London does, though if given the choice they would prefer Moscow or New Delhi to glow.

They needs it to protect its belt road. They will use it to keep friendly gov in power in difficult countries mostly in eastern africa and asia because USA willtry to "democratize" any country helping China.

Belt ROAD... I suspect it is more about a global expansion and view of trade for China in the future... which also makes sense for Russia too because in 2040 I doubt US or UK or French carriers will spring in to action to defend a Russian ship or Chinese ship no matter which international law is concerned....

Supporting commercial links makes it worth the money too.

If the USN carriers weren't at sea, their loss would have pronged the war, to say the least. CVs take a long time to build & outfit.

The real problem was not that they didn't get the carriers, it was that they didn't take comms security seriously and were telling the Americans what they intended to do so the Americans knew what the Japs were going to do when the Japs themselves got the orders...

No offense meant, but to use two aircraft carriers as decoys... that is crazy...

Just 1 would be enough; the other could conduct ASW & engage US tankers/EW/fighter aircraft &/ Taiwan.

I totally agree, but producing dozens of ships and carriers and subs will lead to rapid growth in potential, but unless the Navy grows with it and learns to manage and control its resources, it is going to look rather more impressive than it actually is.

They'll sell/transfer older ships/subs to their CG/inactive reserve/friends, keeping the navy up to date. It's always better to have extra units for local superiority & in case of attrition.
If they start using the Arctic transpolar route/NW Passage, more ships & subs will be needed to protect them against the US & their allies. China can forget about getting a foothold in Greenland.

Just 1 would be enough; the other could conduct ASW & engage US tankers/EW/fighter aircraft &/ Taiwan.

Dude... even with cash to throw around I would think China could make a 50ft long fishing boat with corner reflectors to make it look 300m long and 100K tons... plus noise makers to create a decoy on the cheap instead of a 5 billion dollar aircraft carrier...

If they start using the Arctic transpolar route/NW Passage, more ships & subs will be needed to protect them against the US & their allies. China can forget about getting a foothold in Greenland.

Why would China want to use the NW passage? There are no ports there... friendly or otherwise, and the need for icebreakers and operating inside the territorial waters of another country... Canada has already shown who it prefers between China and the US... the Russians would probably allow Chinese military vessels passage if they needed to get to the Atlantic rapidly but I suspect there would need to be warning given and some president to president communication, but I don't see Russia barring them... particularly if it was something in Russian interests too... like Chinese carriers going to Venzuela for exercises at a time when the USN is poised to invade...

GarryB wrote:Dude... even with cash to throw around I would think China could make a 50ft long fishing boat with corner reflectors to make it look 300m long and 100K tons... plus noise makers to create a decoy on the cheap instead of a 5 billion dollar aircraft carrier...

UAVs & satellites will figure them out; but even if true, having 2 CVs & their escorts in the theater is better than 1. They can launch 2x more aircraft & provide more operational flexibility.

Why would China want to use the NW passage?

It's shorter transit from China to the US E. Coast than via the Panama & future Nicaraguan Canals:
The advantage of the Arctic passage is a shorter route allowing Chinese cargo ships to provide faster delivery without having to worry about monsoons in the Indian Ocean, armed pirates or paying fees to pass through the Suez or Panama canals. ..
hina's Arctic plans fit with a broader effort to disrupt long-standing global trading by pressing its economic might into creating new shortcuts.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chinese-ship-making-first-voyage-through-canadas-northwest-passage/article36142513/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com

https://www.ttnews.com/articles/china-wants-its-cargo-ships-use-faster-northwest-passage-arctic-ocean

"From Shanghai to New York, the traditional route that passes through the Panama Canal is 10,500 nautical miles, while the route that passes through the Northwest Passage is 8,600 nautical miles, which saves 7 days of time."..
"They are preparing for a very substantial increase in the amount of shipping. It is obvious this is going into the planning to a degree that we don't see in Western shipping companies," Prof. Huebert said. "They have given us clear notice this is going to happen."
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/china-used-research-mission-to-test-trade-route-through-canadas-northwest-passage/article36223673/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-arctic/china-wants-ships-to-use-faster-arctic-route-opened-by-global-warming-idUSKCN0XH08U

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/20/china-northwest-passage-trade-route-shipping-guide

https://worldpolicy.org/2016/09/14/chinese-prepare-to-use-the-northwest-passage/

Even if Canada won't allow any Chinese naval escorts into its waters, the SLOCs leading in/out of it r long & vulnerable.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

They have plenty of quieter SSKs to send out ahead of time along possible CVN route/patrol area, no need to keep up with it. It's been done with the USN; the French Navy ASW isn't any better. Besides, Soviet SSNs were noisier but still at least 1 managed to get a periscope picture of a CVN, & 1 collided with the CV-63:

We are talking about the Pacific Ocean, there is no way to guess where the enemy will be to have a slow SSK waiting for it. Nuclear submarines are the only ones that can keep up with a CGB.

We are talking about the Pacific Ocean, there is no way to guess where the enemy will be to have a slow SSK waiting for it.

to be within striking range of its planes & CMs, a CSG must be a certain distance from their targets- a picture of it was already posted here. The resulting search/patrol area will be thus not as big as the entire W. Pacific or E. Indian ocean. They have dozens of older SSKs held in reserve that can infest those waters to help find all those ships & pass targeting data to others, as the U-boat wolf packs did in the N. Atlantic.

UAVs & satellites will figure them out; but even if true, having 2 CVs & their escorts in the theater is better than 1. They can launch 2x more aircraft & provide more operational flexibility.

You can fit a lot of smoke generating equipment on a 50 foot fishing boat... especially one you are not actually using for fishing... it does not need to bear close scrutiny because it wont be alone... it would need to have other ships with it to complete the ruse... but hidden in smoke and with a radar reflection of several square kilometres of ship is going to attract the attention of enemy forces... now you might just have other fishing boats there too pretending to be other vessels or you might have ships armed with SAMs to try to take out any attack to take out your fake carrier... the more missiles and aircraft they send to defeat a fake carrier the less they will have to take on your real carriers, but of course any ships with this fishing boat wont be as well defended as any ship actually supported by a real carrier.

If it is a decoy or distraction you want it to be relatively expendable... use your two real carriers to support the real attack or operation to make it more likely to succeed.

to be within striking range of its planes & CMs, a CSG must be a certain distance from their targets- a picture of it was already posted here.

The picture showed the range of the F-35... did it even include the range of weapons it could carry?

Meaning the area would be much bigger if they did...

Another issue is that they have a lot of naval forces... they might send a group in there not to attack you, but to defeat the forces you send to attack their forces and their might be more forces further out intended to assist them in fighting you and when those two lots of forces are done they might leave and the next two or more carrier groups might come in to attack China or whatever...

You can fit a lot of smoke generating equipment on a 50 foot fishing boat...

An SSN or Japanese SSK can detect its noises & classify it as a fishing boat, or at least eliminate it as a CV.

..the next two or more carrier groups might come in to attack China or whatever...

a good reason to have more ships, subs, aircraft, ASh/B/CMs, & marines/SF to take Taiwan quickly.
The Japanese took the US garrisoned & much larger Philippines from Taiwan, 200 miles to the North:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_campaign_(1941%E2%80%931942)

The Taiwan strait is 100 miles wide & China has/will have a lot more forces at its disposal than Japan had.
Russia can also send her NF & PF armada + bombers off Alaska, Japan & Korea to conduct exercises to tie up the JM/ASDF & USN/AF there while the invasion of Taiwan proceeds. Pakistani, Bangladeshi & Thai navies may be tasked to do the same in the Indian Ocean & the SC Sea to prevent any assistance by India & Vietnam to Taiwan.

An SSN or Japanese SSK can detect its noises & classify it as a fishing boat, or at least eliminate it as a CV.

They have their own carriers and can record the noises they make and generate those noises to come from that fishing boat, which means it would be classified as a CV until information proved otherwise... but then with a real carrier you could have another smoke screen... ie make the fake look real and the real look fake...

a good reason to have more ships, subs, aircraft, ASh/B/CMs, & marines/SF to take Taiwan quickly.
The Japanese took the US garrisoned & much larger Philippines from Taiwan, 200 miles to the North:

A landing is a very vulnerable thing... large numbers of anti armour rocket launchers and large numbers of MANPADs wont be enough to defeat China, but could be easily enough to blunt and invasion force and stop the invasion from taking place...

GarryB wrote:They have their own carriers and can record the noises they make and generate those noises to come from that fishing boat, which means it would be classified as a CV until information proved otherwise...

not in in the absence of radar returns from aircraft flying to/from & around it. The USAF/N & JSDF have AWACS that can detect air activity from 100s of miles away.
Its pulse-Doppler radar (PD) has a range of more than 250 mi (400 km) for low-flying targets at its operating altitude, and the pulse (BTH) radar has a range of approximately 400 mi (650 km) for aircraft flying at medium to high altitudes. The radar, combined with a secondary surveillance radar (SSR) and electronic support measures (ESM), provides a look down capability, to detect, identify, and track low-flying aircraft, while eliminating ground clutter (radar) returns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry#Avionics

The AN / APS-145 radar is capable of tracking more than 2,000 targets and controlling the interception of 40 hostile targets at ranges over 550km.
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/e2-hawkeye/attachment/e2-hawkeye5/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Specifications_(E-2C)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-767#Airborne_early_warning_and_control_system

A landing is a very vulnerable thing... large numbers of anti armour rocket launchers and large numbers of MANPADs wont be enough to defeat China, but could be easily enough to blunt and invasion force and stop the invasion from taking place...

I hope it won't come to that- time will tell!

Now thats a beutiful ship.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
to be within striking range of its planes & CMs, a CSG must be a certain distance from their targets- a picture of it was already posted here. The resulting search/patrol area will be thus not as big as the entire W. Pacific or E. Indian ocean. They have dozens of older SSKs held in reserve that can infest those waters to help find all those ships & pass targeting data to others, as the U-boat wolf packs did in the N. Atlantic.

The French carrier could be sitting as far away as Guam and nuke every city on the Chinese seaboard. When you have catapults and buddy refueling, range is hardly an issue. Chinese land based aviation wouldn't be able to get close to it. When you are that far out into blue water you have to bring your own assets, something the French have and China does not.

They now have J-20s & will get S-400/500s to shoot down the tankers those fighters will need to get in range.
The J-20 with its long range missile armament could threaten vulnerable tankers and ISR/C2 platforms such as the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker and Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS, depriving Washington of radar coverage and strike range.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20#Military

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system#China

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_missile_system#Design

If China's coast is nuked by the French, France &/ French Polynesia will be turned into a 1 big Notre Dame.

In East China Sea, Beijing plays long game

Tsavo Lion wrote:They now have J-20s & will get S-400/500s to shoot down the tankers those fighters will need to get in range.
The J-20 with its long range missile armament could threaten vulnerable tankers and ISR/C2 platforms such as the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker and Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS, depriving Washington of radar coverage and strike range.

They have J-20s which the Indians and Taiwanese have observed is not stealth.  They have S-400 with no long range missiles.  There is no proof that they have a missile that out-ranges Meteor while the French certainly have them.  

If China's coast is nuked by the French, France &/ French Polynesia will be turned into a 1 big Notre Dame.

They can nuke them or use cruise missiles, the point is China's land based defence doesn't have the means to stop them. Only a CBG that can meet them far out at sea would have a chance.

They have J-20s which the Indians and Taiwanese have observed is not stealth.

The J-20 isn't hard to detect from the side; from the front it's another matter. 

They have S-400 with no long range missiles.
They can nuke them or use cruise missiles, the point is China's land based defence doesn't have the means to stop them.  Only a CBG that can meet them far out at sea would have a chance.

why can't they put HQ-9/S-300/400s on ships/barges?
There r 2 CBGs under the Chinese flag now & a 3rd 1 is 2-3 years way. The CV-17 crew & pilots been trained on the CV-16, so it won't take long for them to be ready. Besides, they have AshBMs that don't need to be placed on the coast to keep CVNs well beyond the 1st Island Chain.

Chinese warships like the Type 52C Luyang II and Type 52D Luyang III have both high and low frequency radars, the former official said.
https://news.usni.org/2014/07/29/chinese-russian-radars-track-see-u-s-stealth

..the destroyer’s active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system can detect, track and launch weapons against the F-35 at a range of 350 kilometers or about 189 nautical miles,..
https://news.usni.org/2014/05/14/can-chinas-new-destroyer-find-u-s-stealth-fighters

The F-35 & the Rafale r very close in size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_(F-35A)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Specifications

Tsavo Lion wrote:
The J-20 isn't hard to detect from the side; from the front it's another matter.

It is not hard to detect from the front either... the canards have the surface area of a jet trainer's wings.

why can't they put HQ-9/S-300/400s on ships/barges?
There r 2 CBGs under the Chinese flag now & a 3rd 1 is 2-3 years way. The CV-17 crew & pilots been trained on the CV-16, so it won't take long for them to be ready. Besides, they have AshBMs that don't need to be placed on the coast to keep CVNs well beyond the 1st Island Chain.

They have it on ships that will be escorting the Chinese carrier so why would they need barges? They will have to take the carrier out to do battle beyond the 1st island chain.

Not even the DF-21 has the range to match a buddy refueling Rafale... not that the missile has been demonstrated past hitting a carrier sized parking lot.

The only way for China to stop a nuclear carrier is to go out there and fight them with their own carrier. They don't have the aerial refueling abilities to do it from land bases.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Chinese warships like the Type 52C Luyang II and Type 52D Luyang III have both high and low frequency radars, the former official said.
https://news.usni.org/2014/07/29/chinese-russian-radars-track-see-u-s-stealth

..the destroyer’s active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system can detect, track and launch weapons against the F-35 at a range of 350 kilometers or about 189 nautical miles,..
https://news.usni.org/2014/05/14/can-chinas-new-destroyer-find-u-s-stealth-fighters

So let the Chinese destroyers go out to meet the French battle group.  Type 052D radar is very advanced with its Yagi antenna from the 1970s.  

The F-35 & the Rafale r very close in size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_(F-35A)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Specifications

What have I told you about posting wikipedia links? Anyway, the size of Rafale vs F-35 doesn't matter. What matters is range and Rafale has it and F-35 doesn't.

They have it on ships that will be escorting the Chinese carrier so why would they need barges?

 in case there r not enough ships & to have more SAMs for many different targets.

Not even the DF-21 has the range to match a buddy refueling Rafale...

If u don't trust the links I post, there r references at the bottom to verify the data:
The DF-26 is a development of the DF-21 with range increased from 3,000 km (1,900 mi) to 4,000 km (2,500 mi); its existence was confirmed in the mid-2010s but it had already been in service for several years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-26

The DF-26 has a range of 4,000 km (2,500 mi) and may conduct precisión nuclear or conventional strikes against ground and naval targets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-26

Rafale's max range with 3 drop tanks is 2K nmi, combat raduis is 1K nmi: https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=60

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/indias-rafale-edge-a-look-at-the-special-features-of-the-fighter-aircraft/articleshow/71497450.cms

Tankers r easy to shoot down; if they still manage to refuel Rafales, their range would=that of the DF-26- very thin margin, isn't it?

The only way for China to stop a nuclear carrier is to go out there and fight them with their own carrier. They don't have the aerial refueling abilities to do it from land bases.

Their SSKs & SSNs don't need refueling to get within range of their AshMs & torpedoes. A French CVN must 1st get through choke points in Med./Red Sea, Malaka/Lombok Straits before entering the W.Pacific. The Chinese subs &/ intel ships/aircraft would follow it all the way from the Red Sea/Indian Ocean. Besides:
Xian H-6N/H-6X1 – Air-launched ballistic missile carrier in service as of 2019. ..It is capable of mounting an air-derivative of the Dongfeng-21D anti-ship ballistic missile or the CJ-100 supersonic cruise missile, with an added 3,700 mile range including aerial refueling or a variety of other oversized payloads - including those with nuclear warheads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_H-6#H-6K

CJ-10 Operational range >1,500 km (930 mi; 810 nmi)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJ-10_(missile)

3,700mi of the H-6K+1,900mi of the DF-21=5,600mi, or 9,012.3 km total. https://www.saving.org/length-calculator/mi/5600/km

A dozen H-6Ks will make a French CSG part of naval history.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

The DF-26 has a range of 4,000 km (2,500 mi) and may conduct precisión nuclear or conventional strikes against ground and naval targets.[/i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-26

Rafale's max range with 3 drop tanks is 2K nmi, combat raduis is 1K nmi: https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=60

Tankers r easy to shoot down; if they still manage to refuel them, their range would=that of the DF-26- very thin margin, isn't it?

Their SSKs & SSNs don't need refueling to get within range of their AshMs & torpedoes. A French CVN must 1st get through choke points in Med./Red Sea, Malaka/Lombok Straits before entering the W.Pacific. The Chinese subs &/ intel ships/aircraft would follow it all the way from the Red Sea/Indian Ocean.

China has not demonstrated an operational ASBM capability so until they do it can stay on fakepedia.

Rafale has this...



... which makes range a non-issue.

Chinese radars will never pick up a refueling Rafale at a range that they can engage them.

The French CVN is nuclear, it has no limitations to its point of attack.

Pl. see my prev. edited post. In addition to the H-6U tankers, the Y-20 has now a tanker version:
http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2015-09/08/content_6671974.htm

https://www.janes.com/article/92196/image-shows-possible-plaaf-y-20-tanker-variant-in-flight

They wouldn't be fielding them if untested:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/report-china-tests-df-26-carrier-killer-missile-should-navy-be-worried-42827