China admits 'secret' aircraft carrier is nearly ready

[Bernkastel]

From the Guardian. Personally, I'm interested in this first step by China in the field of carrier aviation.

China has moved a step closer to launching its first aircraft carrier with senior generals in the People's Liberation Army finally confirming one of the world's worst kept military secrets.

Officers from the general staff acknowledged the existence of a carrier, which one of them described as a "symbol of a great nation", amid reports that it could set sail within weeks. The vessel in question is a defunct Soviet-era carrier formerly named the Varyag that was bought in 1998 from Ukraine by a Hong Kong company on the pretext that it would be used as a floating casino off the shores of Macau.

Instead it has been upgraded at China's Dalian naval shipyard with combat sensors and defensive weapons and painted in the colours of the People's Liberation Army. For several years foreigners have been kept out of the area of Dalian where the work has taken place. But the existence of a 67,500 tonne vessel is not easily concealed and in recent months photographs have appeared in state-run media.

Chen Bingde, the chief of China's military general staff, has gone a step further in an interview published in the Hong Kong Commercial Daily (translated link), saying the 300m long carrier "is being built but has not been completed".

His assistant chief, Qi Jianguo, suggested the vessel was both a status symbol and a long-overdue strengthening of China's naval defence. "All of the great nations in the world own aircraft carriers – they are symbols of a great nation," Qi was quoted as saying. "It would have been better for us if we acted sooner in understanding the oceans and mapping out our blue-water capabilities earlier." Referring to areas where territorial waters are disputed, he said that China faced "heavy pressure" in the South China Sea, East China Sea, Yellow Sea and the Taiwan Straits. But the carrier would never sail into the waters of other nations.

No further details have emerged, leaving military experts to speculate whether the revamped hulk will indeed mark a significant projection of Chinese military power as a "blue water" force or the revamped hulk will hold only symbolic value, lacking the technology and operational experience to challenge the US navy.

The commander of US Pacific forces, Admiral Robert Willard, told the Senate in April that he was not concerned about the carrier's military impact but expected it would make a big impression on public opinion. "I think the change in perception by the region will be significant," he said.

In the past year the Chinese military has surprised many foreign observers with the speed of its weapons development – notably the test flight of a J-20 stealth fighter and a "carrier-killer" missile.

China has yet to announce whether the carrier will be renamed. One report suggests it will be called Shi Lang, after a Qing dynasty admiral who conquered Taiwan – further fuelling unease about its impact on regional stability.

[kaeneth]

Well, China now has a vessel to practice Carrier operations in preparation for building a truly modern navy. I'm not sure why there are concerns involving Taiwan tho...isn't it in effective range of Chinese-based airbases already?

[Mr Bean]

Well, China now has a vessel to practice Carrier operations in preparation for building a truly modern navy. I'm not sure why there are concerns involving Taiwan tho...isn't it in effective range of Chinese-based airbases already?

There should be zero concerns about Taiwan with this new Chinese carrier. It's not about Taiwan it's about power projection, specifically the fact that soon China will have the ability to project power with it's carrier force(one) around the globe. You can have ten cruisers and forty destroyers but that does not make a fleet in modern times, only a carrier lets you project power in the sea because a good carrier can draw a two hundred mile circle around itself and declare that nothing is allowed to live in that area without it's permission, and be able to keep that boast. Only carriers can do that.

[Dillon]

Am I the only one surprised to learn that Italy has the second most aircraft carriers in the world? Maybe they ought to offload and sell one to help their suffering economy.

[Eframepilot]

Am I the only one surprised to learn that Italy has the second most aircraft carriers in the world? Maybe they ought to offload and sell one to help their suffering economy.

Italy only has 1 more carrier than Thailand, though. And 2 more than Vatican City.

[TimothyC]

Am I the only one surprised to learn that Italy has the second most aircraft carriers in the world? Maybe they ought to offload and sell one to help their suffering economy.

Mostly because the Spanish L61 Juan Carlos I isn't considered a carrier, even though it's just as capable as the Giuseppe Garibaldi. If you did count Juan Carlos I as a carrier that would tie Spain with Italy. I'd also like to point out that Charles de Gaulle is more capable than either both of the Spanish or both of the Italian carriers.

Counting Carriers isn't as easy as it looks - also keep in mind the US has 9 LHAs and LHDs that roughly equate in capabilities to most of the worlds carriers except for Charles de Gaulle, Admiral Kuznetsov, and Varyag (I'm not sure as to the current status of São Paulo [ex-Foch], but she might show up on this list too as she can fly fixed-wing aircraft such as A-4s and S-2s). Vikramaditya when she's finished is going to be up in that list as well (IE over the next 10 years expect the Indians to surpass the Italians).

Italy only has 1 more carrier than Thailand, though. And 2 more than Vatican City.

The Thais have a sea going helicopter platform/Royal Yacht. If you count Chakri Naruebet as a carrier then the Hyūgas are carriers - and the Japanese have two of those.

[Lonestar]

Am I the only one surprised to learn that Italy has the second most aircraft carriers in the world? Maybe they ought to offload and sell one to help their suffering economy.

You better not be counting those idiot under 10k ton LPDs,

[Dillon]

Sorry, I should have posted the link to where I got these numbers. Admittedly not exactly detailed in terms of what is considered a carrier, or their capabilities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ft-carrier

[TimothyC]

Am I the only one surprised to learn that Italy has the second most aircraft carriers in the world? Maybe they ought to offload and sell one to help their suffering economy.

You better not be counting those idiot under 10k ton LPDs,

No, they've got two STOVL carriers:

• Cavour (550)

And

• Giuseppe Garibaldi (551)

Cavour is around 30k tons and Giuseppe Garibaldi is around 10-15k [A lot like the Sea Control Ship Concept that was built in the form of Principe de Asturias].

Edit: The article is wrong - Netherlands doesn't have a carrier, and they forgot the Spanish carrier(s).

Edit 2: Yeah, ignore that article, it's worse than a wikipedia article

[AniThyng]

Am I the only one surprised to learn that Italy has the second most aircraft carriers in the world? Maybe they ought to offload and sell one to help their suffering economy.

You better not be counting those idiot under 10k ton LPDs,

No, they've got two STOVL carriers:

• Cavour (550)

And

• Giuseppe Garibaldi (551)

Cavour is around 30k tons and Giuseppe Garibaldi is around 10-15k [A lot like the Sea Control Ship Concept that was built in the form of Principe de Asturias].

Edit: The article is wrong - Netherlands doesn't have a carrier, and they forgot the Spanish carrier(s).

Edit 2: Yeah, ignore that article, it's worse than a wikipedia article

If you're counting Garibaldi and Principe de Asturias as carriers, why aren't you counting Chakri Naruebet? It's much more like them then they are like the Hyugas in design, if not necessarily operational role...

[TimothyC]

If you're counting Garibaldi and Principe de Asturias as carriers, why aren't you counting Chakri Naruebet? It's much more like them then they are like the Hyugas in design, if not necessarily operational role...

IIRC the Thais don't have any functional Harriers anymore.

[Sea Skimmer]

IIRC the Thais don't have any functional Harriers anymore.

Yeah the Thai Harriers last flew over ten years ago, and the carrier itself was never truly operational due to budget cuts and a general lack of need. It was primarily intended as an amphibious assault ship. It sorties from time to time, like during the 2004 Tsunami, but not for regular training let alone operations. Harriers are pretty well crap against real fighters anyway unless they’ve been refitted with AMRAAM anyway, and only the RN ever actually did that. USMC ones can on paper but the USMC does not have the required AMRAAM missiles. Harriers give you the 'bomb poor people' capability of a carrier but not the wide ranging sea control capability. And yeah I know 'Sea Control Ship' and all that... but this assumed USN big decks had already blown away everything major first.

[Sarevok]

What about the claim that the Marines need Sea Control ships because USN carriers will mysteriously vanish when required ?

[Sidewinder]

What about the claim that the Marines need Sea Control ships because USN carriers will mysteriously vanish when required ? :)

I've wondered why the Marines need VTOL fighters to operate from amphibious assault ships, instead of relying on the Marine fighter squadrons onboard USN carriers. Tom Clancy suggested this demand for independent strike assets were a legacy of the USN abandoning Marine defenders of Wake Island, but if the Marines need their own air support that badly, why not get a decent sized carrier, just large enough to launch and recover F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets?

[That NOS Guy]

I've wondered why the Marines need VTOL fighters to operate from amphibious assault ships, instead of relying on the Marine fighter squadrons onboard USN carriers. Tom Clancy suggested this demand for independent strike assets were a legacy of the USN abandoning Marine defenders of Wake Island, but if the Marines need their own air support that badly, why not get a decent sized carrier, just large enough to launch and recover F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets?

Seeing that the Marines point to Guadalcanal as the great "abandonment" by the Navy it's silly. The USN fought 4 major surface engagements in the Iron Bottom Sound and two large scale fleet carrier actions in the Solomons proper during the campaign all the while running supplies through to Henderson Field the best they could. Notice that there's not a single example from the rest of the goddamed war of the Navy leaving the Marines high and dry (and even then, it's fairly debatable). Plus, it ignores the point that the Cactus Air Force operated fixed wing Navy and USAAF aircraft in it's spirited defense. Which raises the point of the obsession with VTOL in the first place which only makes procurement a mess.

Suggesting the Marines get their own flattop(s) is absurd. It's like telling the Army to operate their own fixed wing CAS assets in lieu of the AF grumbling about taking on the A-10. The Marines are being retarded to an extreme in their demands and paranoia.

[someone_else]

Cavour is around 30k tons and Giuseppe Garibaldi is around 10-15k [A lot like the Sea Control Ship Concept that was built in the form of Principe de Asturias].

Both are tiny helicopter carriers.
Cavour can launch 30 aircraft, either harriers or helicopters. The fun thing is that its hangar can be used to carry 24 tanks and a buttload of light land vehicles. Why that is useful is unknown to me.

Garibaldi can launch 15 or so aircraft, either harriers or helicopters.

They can't be compared in any way to real aircraft carriers like say nimitz class that carries 80 or so fixed-wing aircraft.

[Agent Sorchus]

It is important to remember that the Nimitz class carriers are actually underloaded with fighters now, so you can have a smaller carrier do the same as what the current Nimitz class actually does. The actual number of fighters carried now on the Nimitz' is around 24 FA-18 (both F and C), 12 Electronics warfare and warning craft and some choppers. Cavour can deliver a comparable number of fighters, though it lacks the E-war craft that are very important to any mission it's craft would fly. Though again Cavour is never at max load either, but it bears examining about the actual capacity of these ships.

And since the Cavour is such a smaller ship while being able to deliver similar enough of a load to the Nimitz as they are actually loaded out now it can be said to be a more economic ship to operate.

[Shroom Man 777]

I bet this announcement is also partly in response to the recent dickeries SEAsian nations are doing regarding the Spratlies. Vietnam is bitching at China over this shit and is going to hold exercises, the Philippines is also bitching that the Chinese violated the Spratly's airspace, etc.

[Simon_Jester]

It is important to remember that the Nimitz class carriers are actually underloaded with fighters now, so you can have a smaller carrier do the same as what the current Nimitz class actually does. The actual number of fighters carried now on the Nimitz' is around 24 FA-18 (both F and C), 12 Electronics warfare and warning craft and some choppers. Cavour can deliver a comparable number of fighters, though it lacks the E-war craft that are very important to any mission it's craft would fly. Though again Cavour is never at max load either, but it bears examining about the actual capacity of these ships.

And since the Cavour is such a smaller ship while being able to deliver similar enough of a load to the Nimitz as they are actually loaded out now it can be said to be a more economic ship to operate.

Although you lack, in that case, the capacity to go "HOLY SHIT" and pile extra aircraft onto a carrier to turn it into a particularly formidable battle-platform. Which the Nimitzes have.

[Sea Skimmer]

It is important to remember that the Nimitz class carriers are actually underloaded with fighters now, so you can have a smaller carrier do the same as what the current Nimitz class actually does. The actual number of fighters carried now on the Nimitz' is around 24 FA-18 (both F and C), 12 Electronics warfare and warning craft and some choppers. Cavour can deliver a comparable number of fighters, though it lacks the E-war craft that are very important to any mission it's craft would fly. Though again Cavour is never at max load either, but it bears examining about the actual capacity of these ships.

And since the Cavour is such a smaller ship while being able to deliver similar enough of a load to the Nimitz as they are actually loaded out now it can be said to be a more economic ship to operate.

USN carriers now have 44-56 fighters, not 24. This still leaves supercarriers under equipped of course. However the large hull doesn't just support a large flight deck and hanger, it also supports very large jet fuel storage tanks and ammunition magazines as well as armor and shear mass of ship to protect them from fire and explosions. Smaller carriers are suffer a lot in terms of how many stores they can carry to sustain the air group in combat; which is all the more important when smaller navies tend to have fewer logistical support ships to go with them.

Modern planes are also just more reliable then older ones, so the disparity in sorties generated per day over a sustained air campaign isn’t going to be as great between say a 1980s Nimitz air group and a 2011 Nimitz air group as the reduction in number of planes would suggest. A fair bit of hanger space has been lost to expanded workshops as well, to support the wider range of systems and precision weapons and equipment used by modern planes.

The point all being, how many planes you have means very little unless you expect very heavy losses very quickly, in which case I suggest employing nuclear weapons. Its how many combat sorties you can fly before the ship, crew and stores are exhausted that count. In that respect any of the Nimitz class hulls makes a complete and utter joke out of everything else ever built including the earlier dirt burning supercarriers laid down prior to the Vietnam War.

To put one a hard number on it, Nimitz herself had storage for 11,000 tons of jet fuel, which is about a third of the entire full load displacement of Cavour. Later Nimitz hulls could hold even more, around 15,000 tons IIRC, part of the reason why Nimitz class full load displacement went up some 15,000 tons over the evolution of the design. In contrast Cavour has 1,355 tons of jet fuel. So a ship about a third the size has an eight as much fuel. This is not a good trade. Certainly someone like Italy couldn't really afford a CVN, but simply counting fighters is not an accurate way to compare aircraft carriers.

This isn’t even considering other disparities like the fact that Cavour has fairly limited range and sustained speed which makes it far more vulnerable to submarines, even more so then any non nuclear carrier would be. Cavour should really just be considered an amphibious warfare ship since Italy has always intended that to be a major portion of the mission.

I've wondered why the Marines need VTOL fighters to operate from amphibious assault ships, instead of relying on the Marine fighter squadrons onboard USN carriers. Tom Clancy suggested this demand for independent strike assets were a legacy of the USN abandoning Marine defenders of Wake Island, but if the Marines need their own air support that badly, why not get a decent sized carrier, just large enough to launch and recover F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets?

The main issue is simply that the USN only has three CVNs on deployment at a time, and still only four or five in the late stages of the cold war when a lone CVN was fairly vulnerable to Soviet attack in any case, and it may need Marines with air support at other places then the locations of those three ships. If all the CVs are ganged together to fight a real enemy, its very nice to have options for limited air support for limited conflicts on the side, or hunting down isolated parts of enemy forces around the globe.

The Harriers were also bought in the first place in the 1980s not just for use from assault ships but also on the basis that they could quickly begin operations from small land bases, roads and similar forward points captured by Marine vertical envelopment. Prior to Harriers the Marines kept the A-4 Skyhawk around as long as possible for this role, along with mobile catapult and arrestor wire gear that could allow limited Skyhawk operations from as little as a 800ft long steel matted runway. But installing all that stuff took more time and transport then establishing a Harrier base and the Skyhawk was getting to be mighty old. If you wanted to operate an F/A-18 off a land base then the Marines would had had to buy new catapults and still adapted much larger ‘minimal’ forward airfield sizes in both length and width. You’d also need more maintenance and support equipment; this particularly issue was more relevant in the 1980s then it is today when the Harriers have gotten a fair number of additional systems and are no longer ‘simple’ as far as fighters go.

All that said, it is an expensive capability and if we had not literally based the entire F-35 program around the B model being feasible, as well as buying USS America instead of keeping 12 CVs, it would surely be dead by now and with it the Marines independent air power.

[Zaune]

The Harriers were also bought in the first place in the 1980s not just for use from assault ships but also on the basis that they could quickly begin operations from small land bases, roads and similar forward points captured by Marine vertical envelopment. Prior to Harriers the Marines kept the A-4 Skyhawk around as long as possible for this role, along with mobile catapult and arrestor wire gear that could allow limited Skyhawk operations from as little as a 800ft long steel matted runway.

But are they any better off with a fixed-wing aircraft than a modern attack helicopter? The Harrier can be a good air-defence aircraft when equipped with AMRAAMs, but the Marine Corps examples are pure bomb-trucks with a couple of Sidewinders; even an old MiG-23 has an edge on them in engagement range.

[Lonestar]

It is important to remember that the Nimitz class carriers are actually underloaded with fighters now, so you can have a smaller carrier do the same as what the current Nimitz class actually does.

I am reliably informed by my NAVAIR peeps that at least part of carrier wing downgrade is because more and more space is being taken up by pallets of printer paper and toner.

[Simon_Jester]

But are they any better off with a fixed-wing aircraft than a modern attack helicopter? The Harrier can be a good air-defence aircraft when equipped with AMRAAMs, but the Marine Corps examples are pure bomb-trucks with a couple of Sidewinders; even an old MiG-23 has an edge on them in engagement range.

Fixed-wing jets have the advantage of speed, being able to carry heavier munitions, and being considerably more resistant to light AA weapons such as shoulder launched missiles and towed autocannon. Helicopters have to worry more about those things, which I'd think makes them less than a desirable choice for combat air support.

[Sea Skimmer]

But are they any better off with a fixed-wing aircraft than a modern attack helicopter? The Harrier can be a good air-defence aircraft when equipped with AMRAAMs, but the Marine Corps examples are pure bomb-trucks with a couple of Sidewinders; even an old MiG-23 has an edge on them in engagement range.

Well, if you fly low, as was intended, the MiG-23 isn’t going to be very well off at all and even much more modern fighters really won’t have any vast advantage in a 200-500ft dog fight. Especially not in the late 70s into 80s when the vast majority of Soviet Frontal Aviation Fighters, and just about everything Third World Countries had did not have look down-shoot down radar capabilities, nor for that matter did even NATO jets, including most of the brand new F-16s flying, around have radar guided missiles to try to use in the first place. Its kind of amazing... heck German F-4 Phantoms didn't even have Sparrow.

Also the main air to air role would be countering enemy attack helicopters, which are a huge threat to an invasion force and not easily countered by shipboard SAMs nor friendly attack helicopters. You do see Sidewinder on USMC Cobras for exactly this scenario; but Sidewinder is a big weight to put on a chopper that small so they usually only fly with a single missile!

Now attack helicopters are also slow, as well as short ranged so cycling back and forth from the carrier takes serious time, and they just can’t carry the same level of firepower as even a weak lightish jet like a Harrier can.

A 1980s Marine Corps Cobra only had TOW and rockets, so it could only engage targets it could see with a flat trajectory. Now they have Hellfire which can dive on the target and be remotely designated by Marines on the ground, but still you aren’t going to crack targets like bridges, heavy buildings, caves or shelter bunkers with such a lightweight weapon. Cobra payload can go up to about 2,000lb as I recall, but because of the weapons used its actually going to deliver less explosives on target then a single 500lb Mk82 bomb dropped by a Harrier, and the Harrier easily carries six of those when doing a short takeoff launch. One of the main Harrier weapons was intended to be the laser guided Maverick; giving Marines on the ground a 300lb warhead they could place exactly on the target they wanted with forward designation. Never mind everyone’s best friend, cluster bombs.

Issues like this are also why the US Army wanted its own fixed wing planes such as the armed versions of Mohawk or else the A-10, rather then just asking for greater numbers of attack helicopters that didn’t create political-turf protection problems. Attack helicopters are great, but they are more precision then heavy firepower and the heavier and more capable the helicopter the less sense it makes to buy it. Today the differences mean less as smart weapons and more advanced kinds of warheads proliferate and we have more options in general with less conventional air threats, but this is long after the Harrier was justified. I think people know I’m not at all a raving Harrier fan either, but the plane did make a fair bit of sense for its time and role.

Fixed-wing jets have the advantage of speed, being able to carry heavier munitions, and being considerably more resistant to light AA weapons such as shoulder launched missiles and towed autocannon. Helicopters have to worry more about those things, which I'd think makes them less than a desirable choice for combat air support.

Resistance to ground air defenses is not an advantage one should really claim for the Harrier prior to the post Gulf War generation of smart weapons and guidance pods allowing it to fly high and still be effective for CAS. For various reasons the aircraft design proved pretty vulnerable to minor gun hits. But so is the Cobra due to lack of any serious armor.

[Simon_Jester]

What I mean is, helicopters are vulnerable to ground fire in general. Fixed wing aircraft are, in general, less vulnerable, which makes it in general desirable to have fixed-wing air support for your amphibious operations.