10 Reasons Not To Worry about Six Chinese Carriers

[gubbi]

Kyle Mizokami: 10 Reasons Not To Worry about Six Chinese Carriers

After nearly a decade of speculation, China has finally publicly declared its intention to build aircraft carriers. The speculation has shifted to numbers, and current guesses put the number of People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) carriers to be produced at 4 to 6 ships of a 50,000- to 60,000-ton design. Production of the first ships, dubbed Project 048, apparently began several years ago.

Six carriers sounds like a huge threat, but are they really? Here are 10 reasons not to worry:

1) Six carriers doesn’t mean six carriers

China will never be able to sortie all six carriers at once. The usual rule of thumb is, for every one carrier on station, two others are in transit, training or in dry dock. By the time the sixth PLAN carrier is ready, the first will be due for an overhaul, and China will be in the same dilemma the U.S. Navy is, having a quarter to a fifth of its carrier fleet constantly undergoing a service-life extension.

2) Chinese carriers will be smaller and less capable

Chinese carriers are expected to be in the range of 50,000 to 60,000 tons displacement, or just around half the size of their American counterparts. They will have about half the air complement of an American carrier and not surprisingly, half the capability.

3) Standing powers don’t feel like sharing

Almost all carrier-owning countries are potential PLAN adversaries. These carrier experts are unlikely to contribute their expertise to help China develop its carrier fleet. Operating a carrier entails a steep learning curve, and the PLAN will be starting from scratch. There is more practical experience in aircraft carrier operation in the geriatric wards of Japan than in all of China. It will take the PLAN a generation to match the U.S. Navy in carrier proficiency.

4) Chinese carriers will create an arms race with Japan

The fielding of PLAN carriers will be intolerable to the Japanese. Not only is the historical rivalry a factor, but practically speaking, the PLAN would be theoretically capable of enforcing a naval blockade of Japan. Japan will be forced to either invest in carrier-killing systems or build its own flattop. And unlike China, Japan would have help.

5) Potential adversaries are way ahead of China

The U.S. fields 11 big deck carriers, the Europeans several more, and India will have two by 2014. A PLAN force of six carriers will be easily outnumbered by more than two to one. That’s just in hulls. If one considers performance, the gap widens. And China will never, ever be allowed to catch up.

6) In the event of war, the American leviathan will simply shut China down

The huge American advantage in stealthy platforms and precision weapons puts the entire Chinese coastline at risk. In a shooting war port facilities will simply disappear. Even if the PLAN manages to sortie there will nowhere for their ships to return to.

7) The PLAN lacks experience

The modern Chinese navy has never been in combat, and its sortie rate for advanced ships, like attack submarines, still lags far behind the West. It has never planned to protect carriers from air/undersea/surface/space threats before and has never organized carrier battle groups.

8) The Chinese are still a generation behind

The sensors, aircraft and weapons to be fitted to these carriers are still at least 20 years behind what is currently in the American fleet. By the time the PLAN carriers take to sea, these techs will be even older. It’s America that is talking about outfitting its ships with “kill-everything” lasers, not China.

9) They will be under constant surveillance

Chinese aircraft carriers will be the most watched ships in the world. America, Japan, India and Australia (the so-called “Quadrilateral Initiative”) will keep constant tabs on any PLAN carrier that puts to sea, removing the vessel’s ability to achieve tactical surprise.

10) There’s a very good chance the Chinese will be on our side

Incidents like the Impeccable aside, China would rather be a friend than an enemy. Besides, American and Chinese interests in the Pacific really aren’t that different.

Wow! 6 aircraft carriers?

 

[navtrek]

Nice but whats with the quadrilateral initiative ?

 

[Imran Khan]

i think we are talking air craft carerrs not missile boats.its seriusly a huge adge on asian powers in future.

 

[Hulk]

In the recent history I have not seen any single war between two major powers. The war has been mostly between a strong country and an underdog. I do not think there will be war between US and China.

 

[Vassnti]

Any time scale on when they have these built by?

The other question from the look ofthe latest chinese uav they plan short fast and stealthy rather than long range long loiter, what is the posibility of a chinese uav carrier as a solution to limited overseas air bases?

 

[Awesome]

And China will never, ever be allowed to catch up.

In the past 10-15 years this has been proven wrong time and again. The rest is a no brainer, the Chinese are not going to launch an invasion of any of the 'powers' any time soon.

However they are in very strong fighting position with respect to defending when the 'powers' come to attack them.

 

[Luftwaffe]

Is that article written by a Japanese? names sounds like a Japanese.

And these are just speculations means guesses, no word from Chinese Navy that they actually are going to build 50,000-60,000 tons of AC..even so how could one tell by the time 6th AC is added 1st one will be ready for overhaul?

I think Chinese will first launch 2 medium class AC before moving on a larger ACs
Chinese carriers will be smaller and less capable
And did Chinese Navy told that they are going to introduce small less capable ACs?

The writer so confidently declares that China will be doing this and that i would like to know his sources if he has any real contacts with Chinese Naval Command or access to..

Nobody knows exactly the number of AirCraft carriers and the tonnage and certainly at this point nobody knows the technology to be used we've to wait.

 

[applesauce]

you know these are some of the exact reasons that PLAN has said about not worrying about its carrier force, i mean seriously brazil and india has em, everyone else in the UNSC has em china can have them too if it wants because no one dictates the chinese military other than its government. actually, all of the reasons above except for the japanese one, any attempt by the japanese to a get carrier will spark a real navy arms race, but why would japan do this? so long as the us continues to protect japan why should it spend billions on what it really doesn't have to? not to mention the defensive nature of their military. and now with china set to be richer than japan any arms race will not be favorable. (ps i discount the Japanese helo carrier cause it only carrier helos not fighter bombers)

(pps i also didnt say whether or not i agree with the reasons, just that i have heard similar explanations from chinese sources)

also this line-> "And China will never, ever be allowed to catch up."

never say never my friend.

and yea most likely the Chinese would not confront the us in a navy war, they're not stupid, in a war with USA they know that PLAN stands no chance against the USN in the near future. but you know what it stands a very good chance against other navys in the region.

 

[gubbi]

actually, all of the reasons above except for the japanese one, any attempt by the japanese to a get carrier will spark a real navy arms race, but why would japan do this? so long as the us continues to protect japan why should it spend billions on what it really doesn't have to? not to mention the defensive nature of their military. and now with china set to be richer than japan any arms race will not be favorable.

Lol do you know that Japan fields the 2nd largest and technically one of the most advanced navies in the world? What are you talking about?

(ps i discount the Japanese helo carrier cause it only carrier helos not fighter bombers)

Thats how the the Japanese got funding to build their ships, by calling them "advanced helicopter carriers"!! They are actually larger than many aircraft carriers around, and FYI, the Japanese are going to field the F-35 soon. So figure where they are going to put their naval F-35s.

and yea most likely the Chinese would not confront the us in a navy war, they're not stupid, in a war with USA they know that PLAN stands no chance against the USN in the near future. but you know what it stands a very good chance against other navys in the region.

China has what you call a "brown water" navy which is Taiwan "conflict specific". No blue water capabilities and China has a lot to learn about being a true blue water navy. OTOH, there are a couple of navies in the neighborhood who actually have "blue water" capabilities and are an even match, if not more, to the PLAN.

Building an aircraft carrier is one thing while operating and maintaining it is an altogether different ball game! Its a logistical nightmare for even the most experienced navies and it takes years to master carrier operations.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

4) Chinese carriers will create an arms race with Japan

The fielding of PLAN carriers will be intolerable to the Japanese. Not only is the historical rivalry a factor, but practically speaking, the PLAN would be theoretically capable of enforcing a naval blockade of Japan. Japan will be forced to either invest in carrier-killing systems or build its own flattop. And unlike China, Japan would have help.

actually I must say here that people have not noticed what Japanese are doing this arms race is probably underway , one of the first A/C carrier of Japan after WW2 has already made its way to waters & they are not stopping at one A/C carrier they have some ambitious plans to make their navy a lethal force & i have a personal feeling that Americans will like to have a strong Japanese navy as a counter for PLAN

Hyuga, DDH-181​

​

On August 22, 2007, the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force launched the Hyuga, a new, large, flat deck vessel which had been laid down in May of 2006. The vessel was then commissioned into the JMSDF on March 18, 2009.

This vessel has a large, flat-deck, and has been designated as a DDH, or helicopter carrying destroyer, for political purposes. The Japanese will build two vessels and they will replace two of the current, traditional DDH vessels in two of the JMSDF escort flotillas. It is contemplated that the JMSDF will then order two more such vessels to replace their other two DDH once these first two are commissioned into the fleet.

The Japanese currently list the carrying capabilitiy of these vessels as 4 small ASW helos or up to 11 large Chinook helicopters. Clearly, if capable of carrying 11 Chinooks, the carriers will be able to operate qutie a few more small helicopters, probably 18-24.

In addition to their aircraft carrying capabilities the vessels will have extensive command and control and communications capabilities to allow them to function as flagships and command ships for the other vessels in their flotillas. In addition, with modern Phased Array Radars (PARS), an integrated combat system, a 16 cell VLS carrying 64 Evolved Sea Sparrow anti-air missiles, and with two 20mm Phalanx CIWS, the vessels will be very capable of defending themselves against air attacks.

To anyone looking at the vessel, it is clear that the ship is in fact a small aircraft carrier along the lines of the United Kingdom's Invincible Class carriers without the ski-jump bow. The 16DDH will in fact be very close in size and displacement to the Invincible class which can carry up to 22 aircraft (rotary and vstol) using two elevators similar to those depicted on this ship. It is clear that the capabilities of these vessels will far exceed the four helicopters currently being listed by the JMSDF.

As suggested, it is likely that the vessel will be able to carry a minimum of 18 helicopters, and probably be capable of a mixed air wing that could include VSTOL jets, like the Harrier II jets, or the new F-35B Joint Strike Fighter being developed by the United States for deployment on US flat-deck amphibious assault vessels.

The Hyuga has no stated provisions for amphibious assault, no well deck, but could clearly be utilized to conduct over the horizon air assaults as the ships size makes it clear that it could carry far more than the 350 crew identified by the JMSDF. This 350 number is, in all likelihood, the naval crew of the vessel alone and other air wing or marine troop capabilities are simply not being published for political purposes.

The vessel is powered by two GE Transportation power trains, each consisting of two LM2500s in a COGAG configuration, driving their respective propeller through a gearbox and shaft. The ship has two shafts. The engines each provide 25,000 shaft horsepower.

The second vessel was laid down in May 2008 and is expected to be launched in late 2009 for commissioning in 2012.
WorldWideAircraftCarriers.com - Hyuga Class Page

This ship is a carrier but because of restrictions placed on Japan at the end of WW2, the ship is classified as a Helicopter Destroyer This new ship is approximately the same size as the Royal Navy's Invincible class but. When the plans were first approved, they showed the bridge amidships but were later changed to show the bridge as now. Japan insists that the ship is just an expanded model of a DDH and should be still classified as such... This ship is 20,000 tons. Destroyers have never exceeded 10,000 tons!
A sister ship is planned for next year, followed by two more when the first two are operational.
Japanese have produced some master pieces in Navy(remember Yamato) & they can no doubt with their economy & all can strike back any time

 

[gambit]

And China will never, ever be allowed to catch up.

In the past 10-15 years this has been proven wrong time and again. The rest is a no brainer, the Chinese are not going to launch an invasion of any of the 'powers' any time soon.

However they are in very strong fighting position with respect to defending when the 'powers' come to attack them.

Really? So for the last 10-15 years, at what military capability has China attained parity with the West or our allies? Admittedly, the phrasing 'never, ever be allowed to catch up' is loaded. It does not mean that there will some military response to deny China any capability. What it means is that the odds are very good that because China is so far behind in terms of technology and experience, no matter how much the PLA progress, China will LIKELY never achieve military parity in those terms. Keep in mind that USAF B-2s flew from CONUS over to Yugoslavia and back. May be by the time the PLAN is able to have global reach with its own carriers, Western doctrine will have aircraft carriers as obsolete precisely because of advances in technology. You seemed to have confused attainment with parity.

 

[Awesome]

Really? So for the last 10-15 years, at what military capability has China attained parity with the West or our allies? Admittedly, the phrasing 'never, ever be allowed to catch up' is loaded. It does not mean that there will some military response to deny China any capability. What it means is that the odds are very good that because China is so far behind in terms of technology and experience, no matter how much the PLA progress, China will LIKELY never achieve military parity in those terms. Keep in mind that USAF B-2s flew from CONUS over to Yugoslavia and back. May be by the time the PLAN is able to have global reach with its own carriers, Western doctrine will have aircraft carriers as obsolete precisely because of advances in technology. You seemed to have confused attainment with parity.

I merely meant in terms of catching up. I do acknowledge they haven't actually caught up in anything yet, but do you deny the gap is less wide now than say the early 90s? I can get in to some justifications of that (like the F-22 rival - whatever it is, the missile tech, the SAT killers, etc.), but that would be deviating from topic and they are also unproven (but widely accepted) arguments.

I'm not declaring parity between capabilities, in all regards the westerners are ahead of the Chinese.

 

[paritosh]

@emo-girl
these pics that you have posted are i believe of the Jap-carriers...?
well they don't seem to have the length to launch naval a/cs..they don't even have a ski-jump...only fit to house VTOLs...

 

[gambit]

I merely meant in terms of catching up. I do acknowledge they haven't actually caught up in anything yet, but do you deny the gap is less wide now than say the early 90s? I can get in to some justifications of that (like the F-22 rival - whatever it is, the missile tech, the SAT killers, etc.), but that would be deviating from topic and they are also unproven (but widely accepted) arguments.

I'm not declaring parity between capabilities, in all regards the westerners are ahead of the Chinese.

Overall...I would say that China has narrowed the military capability gap but not the technological one.

I have said it before and I will repeat it...That there really is no such thing as 'military technology', only the military adoption and adaptations of technology for military uses. Even radar low observability ala 'stealth' aircraft came from civilian technology. Antenna RCS have been an issue long before Lockheed's F-117 came to be. Anyway...The US is the current global leader in technological advancements and DARPA is a subtle but powerful enabler of both general advancement and the adoption and adaptations of technology for military uses. DARPA does not say: Design an M-16. Rather, DARPA will say: Gunpowder exist, so develop a superior gunpowder. Then DARPA will sit back and let the free market, entrepreneurs and tinkerers design the M-16 or whatever. In other words, DARPA will usually try to be one or two levels below the final product but one or two levels above the base technological foundation of an idea. Until China has a DARPA equivalent, the PLA will always play catch-up to the US. But the PLA cannot have a DARPA equivalent until the Chinese society in general is capable of being innovator instead of replicator of science and technology.

 

[Comet]

What is technology. Its not something directly proportional to time spent on it. China was no where in picture when USA had computer. Now, China made a super-computer. They are following quick. Sooner, they will have the ability to match USN.