Disputed Islands...

[enduramil]

Originally Posted by Duncan

How effective do you think an aircraft carrier is without the support of an effective carrier group? I don't know how effective the Chinese have been in creating and designing the safety umbrella for protecting that a lumbering, big-ass target like a carrier the open ocean. Maybe they have it all figured out. But the I think one for those on the high seas would be a big target for cruise missiles, a stealth submarine or a surprise stealth attack from the air. Its not 1942 anymore where you needed slow spotter aircraft to scour millions of square miles of ocean to spot a carrier fleet. You can bet that once that thing gets out into the blue water, it will have subs from at least a couple of countries shadowing it round-the-clock.

The carrier is great at projecting air power against lesser enemies (Imperial Japan after 1942, Libya, Afghanistan, Argentina), but for meeting an enemy on equal terms, probably less so.

Well not counting allies last I checked the JMSDFhas no aircraft carrier capability. So advantage PLA Navy.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by enduramil

Well not counting allies last I checked the JMSDFhas no aircraft carrier capability. So advantage PLA Navy.

Today, the JMSDF's carrier component is called the United States Pacific Fleet (oh! the irony). I think pretty much every country that has tried has decided that unless you are prepared to invest huge sums of money into an armada or armadas of infrastructure/support, carriers on their own are not cost effective.

[HIBuLlitT]

Originally Posted by enduramil

Well not counting allies last I checked the JMSDFhas no aircraft carrier capability. So advantage PLA Navy.

Originally Posted by Duncan

Today, the JMSDF's carrier component is called the United States Pacific Fleet (oh! the irony). I think pretty much every country that has tried has decided that unless you are prepared to invest huge sums of money into an armada or armadas of infrastructure/support, carriers on their own are not cost effective.

And the larges Navy fleet in the world. So advantage Japan/USA. I do find it a bit arrogant
that "other nations" like the USA expect a response when asking a sovereign nation like
China why they need one. It's up to them isn't it?

[semaj]

Originally Posted by enduramil

And China has a new piece to add.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4561868/

Awesome, they won't need to steal footage from Top Gun and use it on the news as "training" footage to show their people anymore!

[enduramil]

Originally Posted by HIBuLlitT

And the larges Navy fleet in the world. So advantage Japan/USA. I do find it a bit arrogant
that "other nations" like the USA expect a response when asking a sovereign nation like
China why they need one. It's up to them isn't it?

And it seems other countries are getting into aircraft carriers... India 1, Brazil 1, Thailand 1, and Italy with 2.

[HIBuLlitT]

Originally Posted by enduramil

And it seems other countries are getting into aircraft carriers... India 1, Brazil 1, Thailand 1, and Italy with 2.

The world has 10 carriers (some of them are STOVL's or small assault carriers. The USA
has 11 full sized and 9 STOVL's. I think the Spanish and French are old US STOVL's.

[switch]

It's scary to think about the destruction one US carrier battle group could bring down.

[HIBuLlitT]

Originally Posted by switch

It's scary to think about the destruction one US carrier battle group could bring down.

What's scarier to me is the US subs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submari..._current_force

-Ohio class (18 in commission) — 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBN'S), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGN's)- missile submarines
-Virginia class (7 in commission, 3 under construction, 4 on order) — fast attack submarines
-Seawolf class (3 in commission) — attack submarines
-Los Angeles class (43 in commission, 2 in reserve) — attack submarines

So there's 14 subs carrying 14 nuclear SSBN's (Trident II). Each Trident carries 4-475kt
or 8-100kt nuclear warheads...Hiroshima was 10-12kt. With a range of 7,000 miles @ 13,422mph
killing can be done from pretty much anywhere in the world pretty quick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II

US military power is pretty scary.

[enduramil]

Originally Posted by HIBuLlitT

The world has 10 carriers (some of them are STOVL's or small assault carriers. The USA
has 11 full sized and 9 STOVL's. I think the Spanish and French are old US STOVL's.

Looks like the RAN will have a capability similar to the Invincible in a year or 2.

[switch]

SSBN-734 and subsequent hulls upon construction, SSBN-730 to SSBN-733 since refueling
24 Trident II D5 SLBM with up to 12 W76 or W88 (300–475 ktTNT) nuclear warheads (with MIRV), range 6,500 nmi (7,500 mi; 12,000 km)

24 x 12 warheads.

[jitenshakun]

The US can't nuke China - the repercussions for Wal-Mart inventory would be staggering.

[Duncan]

Another view on China's Carrier. China does not currently possess any carrier-capable fixed-wing aircraft.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/wo...skeptical.html

[switch]

One missile and she's toast.

[enduramil]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Another view on China's Carrier. China does not currently possess any carrier-capable fixed-wing aircraft.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/wo...skeptical.html

Maybe or maybe not. They have had 20 plus years to study and work on the carrier aircraft problem. Thanks to the RAN scrapping the HMAS Melbourne and failing to remove vital equipment. Prior to it going to China to be broken up in 1985.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)

The ship was not scrapped immediately; instead she was studied by Chinese naval architects and engineers as part of the nation's top-secret carrier development program.[6] However, it is unclear whether the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) orchestrated the acquisition of Melbourne or simply took advantage of the situation; Rear Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong, who is both the son of PLAN founder Zhang Aiping and a staff member at the National Defence College, has stated that the Navy was unaware of the purchase until Melbourne first arrived at Guangzhou.[161] Melbourne was the largest warship any of the Chinese experts had seen, and they were surprised by the amount of equipment which was still in place.

The PLAN subsequently arranged for the ship's flight deck and all the equipment associated with flying operations to be removed so that they could be studied in depth.[156] Reports have circulated that either a replica of the flight deck, or the deck itself, was used for clandestine training of People's Liberation Army Navy pilots in carrier flight operations.[6] It has also been claimed that the Royal Australian Navy received and "politely rejected" a request from the PLAN for blueprints of the ship's steam catapult.[156]

The carrier was not dismantled for many years; according to some rumours she was not completely broken up until 2002.[144] A 2012 article in Jane's Navy International stated that the large quantity of equipment recovered from Melbourne "undoubtedly helped" Admiral Liu Hau-qing secure the Chinese Government's support for his proposal to initiate a program to develop aircraft carriers for the Navy.[156

The Kiev 1994 and the Minsk in 1996 prior to the aquisition of what is the present PLAN carrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_..._carrier_Minsk

[enduramil]

Originally Posted by switch

One missile and she's toast.

Unless it's a nuke she stands a good chance of taking some hits. Recall the HMS Sheffield that is way smaller took an Exocet and it stayed a float. Naval warships are designed to seal of damaged areas to keep the ship a float. Our resident Coastie can elaborate more on that.