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!
I assumed we were talking about conventional warfare, in a nuclear war China's navy matters even less.
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 its 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, thats 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.
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 thats 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.
Maybe that is just bureaucratic inertia, But am I not really in a position to know, just the vibe I got watching a history channel documentary.
I don't believe that China will ever become the awesome power that everyone here assumes they will become.
Americans are used to having a big enemy and China just makes a for a really good enemy. There's a lot of them, they're not aligned with NATO, they're an economic powerhouse, have nuclear weapons, EAT cats, .. and dogs.. look different, are communist.. man.. they are perfect enemies for America. It's like they were MADE to be an enemy by God himself.
I would actually assume China won't develop into a blue water navy powerhouse plowing every sea on earth until, and if, for some reason the US stops, or fails, at patrolling the world's sea lanes. As long as the US keeps providing this service in its current reasonably even handed way, China has no need to step up. Should that change, China might however feel a need to do so, in which case knowing enough about the business to be able to would be useful.
'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.
Politics aside, when you get a chance to talk naval stuff, you're a great read.
That would be as an expensive chore, which someone might have to do (or done collectively), but where the cost-benefit analysis of the US continuing to do (most of) it for the forseeable future as opposed to China actively wanting to take it over, I don't think the Chinese would find it that high on their list of priorities. That is, at least until the US proves unwilling/unable to execute it in an evenhanded fashion enough for the Chinese to leave the matter pending.Somehow, I doubt that China sees America's dominance over the seas in the same light that you do. They may not have the means to challenge America's navy, but I'm sure they have reasons for pursuing a blue-water navy that are a little more ambitious than keeping the sea lanes open.
Err.... I literally cannot believe I have to point this out to you but no, your daughter is not catching up to you age-wise at all. The difference between your ages is constant and always will be.
Yes, but as he pointed out the 'multiplier gap' is closing - for example it may not be the case in say fifty years that the Americans can boast 'we could destroy the Chinese navy three times over'.
I agree. But that reinforces my point and makes his irrelevant (unless he plans on waging naval warfare against his daughter)
Somehow, I doubt that China sees America's dominance over the seas in the same light that you do. They may not have the means to challenge America's navy, but I'm sure they have reasons for pursuing a blue-water navy that are a little more ambitious than keeping the sea lanes open.
Think about it in terms of the civ game, IF:
ME ............. THEM
5 ................. 1, I win allot
6 ................. 2,
7 ................. 3,
.
.
.
15 .............. 10,
.
.
.
25 ............... 20,
At some point my five point head start becomes allot less meaningful.
Yes, but as he pointed out the 'multiplier gap' is closing - for example it may not be the case in say fifty years that the Americans can boast 'we could destroy the Chinese navy three times over'.