Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Chinese Aircraft Carriers
macawman    2/13/2004 8:47:20 PM
>>>However, it appears that the carriers are not intended for distant power projection operations in the sense US CVNs are. Designed to operate near PLAN bases, they are to be offshore aviation platforms for a mainly land based naval air force.<<< I think the Strategypage writer missed the logic of why China wants to own carriers. The PURPOSE of aircraft carriers IS deep strike force projection and NOT coastal defense. Coastal defense is best served by land based, long range, attack aircraft and by AWACS & or satellite directed SSMs..
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
gf0012-aus    RE:Chinese Aircraft Carriers   2/13/2004 9:04:10 PM
Get a compass stick the point into the nearest Flanker/Mainstay airfield Halve the range and then minus 15 minutes for loiter (to establish the turn back point) = new protection arc for surface vessels from non refueled assets locate the carrier at that point = new force projection point in range of non refueled shore based protection definitely not a coastal arc if you use that as a primitive start point.
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:Chinese Aircraft Carriers   2/14/2004 2:00:15 AM
Heh, more targets.
 
Quote    Reply

Siddar    I jsut dont get it???   2/14/2004 3:07:11 AM
Ok im confused dont quiet understand what the dotrine layed out for use of these carrier is. Carriers dont have there own planes? But use land based planes? What does carrier just launch refukers for land based planes? Its not clicking for me that this makes any kind of sense. Second if they are going to use carriers to launch fighters then do they have carrier able planes? Two years seems like very short period to go from zero carrier aviation to deployed carrier fighters. I dunknow maybe im dense here someone explain it to slow?
 
Quote    Reply

Siddar    RE:I jsut dont get it???   2/14/2004 3:09:05 AM
wow my spelling sucks sorry.
 
Quote    Reply

Slade    RE:I jsut dont get it???   2/14/2004 9:45:18 AM
Hopefully this example from history will illustrate what the Chinese are thinking. In mid November of 43 2 land based USN fighter squadrons (VF's 17 & 33) landed on Essex, Bunker Hill and Independence to refuel and provide aircover while the carrier airgroups were striking IJN ships at Rabaul. Source Tom Blackburn's The Jolly Rogers. The concept is similar here the way I interpreted it and is workable if all aircraft and aircrews are carrier capable. It will probably take longer to work out the kinks of this than those thinking up the plan think it will. It also requires a high training standard all the way around which IIRC the Chinese have a problem with historically so........
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    RE:I jsut dont get it???   2/14/2004 12:22:18 PM
The whole purpose of the compass in the map story is that if the carrier is only for coastal protection, then it will stay within the range of shore based interceptors for redundancy purposes. You aren't goimg to build a multi billion dollar carrier and then never let it leave home as you are worried about losing it....
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:I jsut dont get it???   2/14/2004 12:55:39 PM
The doctrine outlined seems pretty non-sensical to me, unless the writer simply failed to express his point (and explain the utility), or if China has decided that major powers (and some minor ones) have carriers, ergo they must have them too. In the latter case, an airstrip floating in sight of land might make sense -- they can always stage PR photos with the cameras pointed seaward, so it looks like a blue-water fleet is on the prowl. An occasional friendly visit to America, Middle Eastern, and perhaps even European ports should convince politicians, with their usual ignorance of military realities, that China has arrived as a major player. Or, perhaps the USN is funding the Chinese ships out of a black projects budget to justify the next generation of blue water combatants . . .
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:I jsut dont get it???   2/14/2004 2:34:37 PM
>>>You aren't goimg to build a multi billion (then multi million) dollar carrier and then never let it leave home as you are worried about losing it... <<< Someone should have told the Argies this during the Falklands conflict.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    RE:I jsut dont get it??? - Macawman   2/14/2004 5:33:39 PM
Yep, there's always an exception to the rule - ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:Chinese Aircraft Carriers   2/15/2004 4:25:57 PM
Personally, I question the accuracy of the entire article. If it was written by the same person who wrote the recent article on naval air defense systems, or the current piece that claims Israel wants to build 12,000 ton cruisers I would call the whole thing VERY highly suspect.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy