China set to launch first Aircraft Carrier

Submarines are only good for intel and sea control. They can lob the odd cruise missile here or there but it is a token effort, they are pretty much one trick platforms.

As far as Aronnax was from the mark, can I advance the little matter of throwing nuclear missles around? That's a pretty important job.

In a sea-fleet on sea-fleet battle, wouldn't submarines have a stronger more advantageous edge of being much harder to hit as well as to detect? I would imagine if a lone air-craft carrier was to camp out outside of the enemy's coastal waters, a lone submarine would be able to sneak out and torpedo the carrier much more effectively than the other way round.

When alone, doesn't the aircraft carrier lose its effectiveness of airpower against a submarine?
 
In a sea-fleet on sea-fleet battle, wouldn't submarines have a stronger more advantageous edge of being much harder to hit as well as to detect? I would imagine if a lone air-craft carrier was to camp out outside of the enemy's coastal waters, a lone submarine would be able to sneak out and torpedo the carrier much more effectively than the other way round.

The carrier's escort would almost certainly be able to find and deal with the submarine. That's why we have anti-submarine systems. Not to mention friendly submarines doing the same job looking out for enemy boats.

When alone, doesn't the aircraft carrier lose its effectiveness of airpower against a submarine?

Aircraft carriers don't just go behind a bush for the toilet. Pretty much the whole of naval tactics hinges around protecting the things and destroying the enemy's. You don't just catch them alone.
 
As far as Aronnax was from the mark, can I advance the little matter of throwing nuclear missles around? That's a pretty important job.

I assumed we were talking about conventional warfare, in a nuclear war China's navy matters even less.

In a sea-fleet on sea-fleet battle, wouldn't submarines have a stronger more advantageous edge of being much harder to hit as well as to detect?

I would imagine if a lone air-craft carrier was to camp out outside of the enemy's coastal waters, a lone submarine would be able to sneak out and torpedo the carrier much more effectively than the other way round.

There is a balancing act between certain characteristics. Low profile and weapons range are two of the most valuable in naval warfare. Unfortunately in most cases you have to sacrifice one to get the other. A submarine is very low profile, but it is very much a local asset. A carrier is high profile, but it has the capability of controlling thousands of square miles of sea space at any one time, and not just in the USW and SUW sense but also the AAW, MIO and Strike areas.

Yeah, we could put a submarine right off China's coast all by its lonesome and it will very likely survive just fine, but what is it going to do? Lob a few tomahawks, sure, but they have a very finite number. Their presence will chill Chinese operations and provide a measure of sea control, but a submarine is not going to waste warshots on random merchants or minor warships, it only has a couple dozen short range torpedoes and maybe a few Harpoons.

A carrier off the coast of China, however, exercises complete uncontested control of whole regions of sea space. It has a practically limitless supply of ordnance of all types including highly specialized ones. It can refuel and reprovision at sea, and it can extend its strike power hundreds of miles inland. So while it is certainly a much harder platform to keep alive than the submarine, the rewards for doing so are far higher at the same time.

And of course we don't deploy carriers alone, we deploy them with a half dozen DDGs and CGs which by themselves bring with them hundreds of TLAMs to augment the carrier strike capabilities. Those vessels are also the most capable AAW assets in the world, and denying your enemy effective air control is a priceless asset (which of course the carrier is quite helpful at too).

So it’s a trade off. China has no real competitive edge in any warfare area except USW, in at that it is only competitive in as much as it can slightly degrade our ability to operate in the other warfare areas. And by slightly degrade we are talking about not being able to operate with complete impunity. That is obviously a change considering the wars the US has fought in the last 70 years, but is just not having complete impunity really that crippling a thing if you really think about it? No, that’s how all major wars involving powerful nations are.

I like submarines, they play a pivotal role in the fleet and I wish we had more (diesel) to play with. But that doesn't mean carriers are somehow not still the most capable platform we have.

When alone, doesn't the aircraft carrier lose its effectiveness of airpower against a submarine?

The carrier has a plethora of helicopters and aircraft dedicated to nothing but ASW, the carrier is more than capable of finding and destroying submarines all on its own. Its obviously a lot better at doing that with escorts, but then that’s obvious.

To be clear, I am not saying there is no potential for a submarine to penetrate and get to the HVU, but that has always been the case form the invention of the submarine on. Same for aircraft.
 
Well that was an interesting read.
 
Well that was an interesting read.

I second that! Excellent post Patroklos.

Had to do a bit of wiki'ing to wade through the acronyms though. :lol:
 
Why do you say that you would like more diesel submarines? From what I have read, they seem to be best used along the coasts where their shorter range is more then compensated for in their small size. Given a large part of the USN is about force projection rather then homeland defense, why would diesel submarines be a useful tool to play with, outside of "Oh no, the Soviets are invading America!" scenarios?
 
Why do you say that you would like more diesel submarines? From what I have read, they seem to be best used along the coasts where their shorter range is more then compensated for in their small size. Given a large part of the USN is about force projection rather then homeland defense, why would diesel submarines be a useful tool to play with, outside of "Oh no, the Soviets are invading America!" scenarios?

In order of importance:

1.) I can buy three German U212/213 equivalents for 1 Virginia-class.
2.) We have bases in Bahrain, Japan, and Italy that could support those boats easily, thus not requiring our diesel boats to transit oceans.
3.) The most likely areas we will engage in conflict is the littorals (Persian Gulf, South China Sea, etc.), the exact place these boats are most suited to operate.
4.) Diesel boats don't require expensive nuclear trained officers to man, and we are already severaly undermanned in that designator as it is.

I am not saying replace our nuclear boats, I am envisioning a half and half split. Most of the diesels forward deployed to Guam, Hawaii, Japan, Bahrain, Sigonella/Naples, the rest and the nuclears spread around ready to surge.
 
I forgot about our oversea bases.:blush: Whoops.
 
We could always strap a couple diesel subs to the undercarriage of our super carriers to function as pontoons until they are needed for submersible warfare. :mischief:
 
Didn't the Brits discontinue using these types of carriers because they found out in the Falklands war that they just did not bring enough bang for the buck?
 
Patroklos, would you realy be confident parking a carrier off China's coast in, say, 10 years time?
 
China will have a better navy and probably a lot more ship-killer missiles. It's just an arbitrary date really, no big significance to it.

And by that time we will have laser wielding death robots and super-magnetic rail guns (actually both the laser weapon and rail gun are being developed and tested right now).

I mean surely you didnt assume that the USA was just going to halt weapons development just to let China catch up to us, did you?
 
And by that time we will have laser wielding death robots and super-magnetic rail guns (actually both the laser weapon and rail gun are being developed and tested right now).

I mean surely you didnt assume that the USA was just going to halt weapons development just to let China catch up to us, did you?

No, but anything I have read about it (and I've read A LOT, mainly from RAND) says that the gap is definitely closing, not widening. You will likely stay ahead for a long time, but they are catching up. You've probably read most of the same stuff as me, I assume?
 
No, but anything I have read about it (and I've read A LOT, mainly from RAND) says that the gap is definitely closing, not widening. You will likely stay ahead for a long time, but they are catching up. You've probably read most of the same stuff as me, I assume?

'Catching up' is relative and sometimes hard to attach context to. My oldest child is 'catching up' to me in age, but I will forever be older than she. In a couple of years I will no longer be twice her age, and she will continue to be 'catching up' to me until I die.

We dont have a lot to worry about with China, especially navy wise for a very, very long time. Far in excess of 10 years absolutely.
 
Didn't the Brits discontinue using these types of carriers because they found out in the Falklands war that they just did not bring enough bang for the buck?

Considering that we retired one of the ones that took us to the Falklands about a month ago and the other's still in service with the Indian Navy, probably not. We just thought that having a bigger one would be more fun. Especially if we could have two of them!
 
To me it's an "aww, that's nice for you China" moment, before the american who said it turns back to watch his own supreme navy.
 
Top Bottom