They are great for projecting an appearance of power, but tactically they have been obsolete for some time. They represent a massive overcapitalization of financial and personnel resources in an unwieldy unit, the extreme super-concentration of which renders them a significant matériel liability due to their susceptibility to attack. In other words, you lose one carrier and you’ve lost a couple of thousand navy personnel and several dozen aircraft, the economic cost of which runs into thousands of millions of dollars, and the military cost of which is incalculable.[/quote]
But they’re SO photogenic! 
And can you just IMAGINE the damage that even something as obsolete as a couple of Exocets could do to an ancient old Russkie tub like that? Even an ancient old Russkie tub with Chinese characteristics? :roflmao: Still, beijing wants to wave its tiny wee willy about and say “look at us!” Who are we to deny? Its good for a laugh, at least.
You’re all laughing now, but one day they’ll get one with aircraft on it. Then who’ll be fucking laughing?
I think the USA will use its carriers at least for one purpose. To galvanize the American public for war should the need arise. Ala pearl harbor?
They are great for projecting an appearance of power, but tactically they have been obsolete for some time. They represent a massive overcapitalization of financial and personnel resources in an unwieldy unit, the extreme super-concentration of which renders them a significant matériel liability due to their susceptibility to attack. In other words, you lose one carrier and you’ve lost a couple of thousand navy personnel and several dozen aircraft, the economic cost of which runs into thousands of millions of dollars, and the military cost of which is incalculable.[/quote]
Yes and no.
They aren’t obsolete. But, they are inappropriate for the kinds of conflicts the West is engaged in. They need to be reconfigured. Spending millions of dollars of munitions on a ten dollar target doesn’t make any sense, and hasn’t made sense for a long time.
Likewise, the submarine fleet.
The US and Europe will still need to project power away from its borders and provide air support while doing it. You can’t do that without CVs.
As long as China understands the proper use for aircraft carrier battle/strike groups, they’ll probably be able to use them effectively. Strategy is always about paper/scissors/stone, in one way or another.
Right now, China has its ‘training wheels’ on. When they don’t need them anymore is when we’ll start to worry.
That’s easy: because China is evil.
Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up.
[quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]The US and Europe will still need to project power away from its borders and provide air support while doing it. You can’t do that without CVs.
As long as China understands the proper use for aircraft carrier battle/strike groups, they’ll probably be able to use them effectively. Strategy is always about paper/scissors/stone, in one way or another.
Right now, China has its ‘training wheels’ on. When they don’t need them anymore is when we’ll start to worry.[/quote]
Unlike US and Europe, I don’t think China will be using its carrier to project power far away from its borders. This is what’s so great about not being the “world police”. China doesn’t need a dozen carriers, only what’s needed to protect it’s own maritime sovereignty.
And worry? Please. Just about every country that’s a somebody is either operating carrier or had in the past. Friggin Thailand has a carrier.
That’s easy: because China is evil.[/quote]
You mean the same evil country that’s the top holder of US debt? If the US buys so much stuff from that country that for years it produced the largest trade deficit the US had with any other country, it doesn’t sound too evil.
I was surprised to read that of all goods Americans buy , only 3 pct is made in China. So maybe China has less clout then we thought economically. Except that indeed the are the biggest buyers of Uncle Sams bonds and Uncle Sam would like them to continue to buy.
[quote=“bohica”][quote=“Got To Be Kidding”]The US and Europe will still need to project power away from its borders and provide air support while doing it. You can’t do that without CVs.
As long as China understands the proper use for aircraft carrier battle/strike groups, they’ll probably be able to use them effectively. Strategy is always about paper/scissors/stone, in one way or another.
Right now, China has its ‘training wheels’ on. When they don’t need them anymore is when we’ll start to worry.[/quote]
Unlike US and Europe, I don’t think China will be using its carrier to project power far away from its borders. This is what’s so great about not being the “world police”. China doesn’t need a dozen carriers, only what’s needed to protect it’s own maritime sovereignty.
And worry? Please. Just about every country that’s a somebody is either operating carrier or had in the past. Friggin Thailand has a carrier.[/quote]
Yeah, but Thailand isn’t evil. What’s Thailand’s nickname? The Land of Smiles. See, not evil. What’s China’s nickname? Evil Bastards. See, evil.
That’s easy: because China is evil.[/quote]
You mean the same evil country that’s the top holder of US debt? If the US buys so much stuff from that country that for years it produced the largest trade deficit the US had with any other country, it doesn’t sound too evil.[/quote]
That’s just one of many ways in which China is evil.
That’s easy: because China is evil.[/quote]
Sorry, Guy, but I honestly can’t tell if you’re joking, exaggerating or telling it how you see it. Could you amplify on that?
That’s easy: because China is evil.[/quote]
Sorry, Guy, but I honestly can’t tell if you;re joking, exaggerating or telling it how you see it. Could you amplify on that?[/quote]
Yes, it is actually quite ambiguous. I am not sure based on that comment if I either agree with you, or if I am extremely offended by the comment (:
It was 3% of US consumer spending to be precise. Most is spent at home in the form of services.
These days, carriers would likely be more of a worry than an asset in a full-on naval shooting war, but they’re not obsolete–the US gets plenty of mileage out of theirs, without having lost one since 1945.
I don’t think anyone is too concerned about this, as the OP seems to suggest. It’s a natural move for China. It’s a threat to Taiwan though, but Taiwan seems to be working on ways to counter it. It would be useful in a blockade type scenario. In a full on war it, like US carriers, would make a big target.
That’s easy: because China is evil.[/quote]
Sorry, Guy, but I honestly can’t tell if you;re joking, exaggerating or telling it how you see it. Could you amplify on that?[/quote]
Yes, it is actually quite ambiguous. I am not sure based on that comment if I either agree with you, or if I am extremely offended by the comment (:[/quote]
My 
I think China is evil. Look at their past and present. In under 100 years they managed to decimate their ancient culture, have parents killing their own children, and starve anywhere from 30 to 80 million people (we will never know). Today fathers who protest against companies that kill their children are chucked off to jail cells to be tortured and religious/spiritual activity is oppressed by force. Global norms and laws are completely disregarded and murderous regimes are openly supported by the PRC (and no, you cannot compare the US supporting regimes like in Nicaragua to the fuck-all-humanity of China’s support of the DPRK).
Yet, the global community is expected to recognize China as a “great and magnificient” power. :loco:
That definitely warrants a “Kiss My Ass”.
Carriers are missile magnets, which is why the US puts a strike group around them. But for China, as others have mentioned, it is a good way to beat on the flips or others that might aspire to hold a piece of the Spratleys or other areas of “core national interest”.
China is not just evil, it is 1930’s super-nationalist brown-shirt evil, with a historical chip on its shoulder to boot.
This aircraft carrier is just for show and psychological effect. China knows that it cannot win a prolonged naval confrontation with the US, especially in an aircraft carrier battle where the US has qualitative and numerical superiority.
Speaking from a devil’s advocate standpoint, if I were China, I’d be using the DF-21 supersonic carrier-killing missile instead to deny area access to the USN. I’d be using stealth in naval combat by relying on submarines to infiltrate and sink US naval forces. The PLN knows that anti-ship cruise missiles launched from land are vulnerable to US drones. Their submarines can’t be detected by US drones. So they will use their submarines to maximum effect against the US Navy. US anti-submarine warfare has not kept up with technology that has made the newest submarines stealthier and quieter. This is a potential weakness that the PLN is likely to exploit.
I wouldn’t say it’s just for show, it’s handy for them to sail around the Spratlys and South China Sea and up and down the Taiwan Strait , it doesn’t actually need to be used in battle to be useful. It’s good for PR when they need to chip in for the odd disaster relief or Chinese citizen extraction too.
I think we can all agree that whatever China does with its military, even if it’s saving puppies and kittens, lots of foreigners are going to be moaning and groaning “Oooo, what are China’s intentions?”, “Oh my, China is becoming assertive, should we be concerned?”, and of course, “China is EVIL!!!”.
For some reason, I think these remarks are just going to be there as China rises. And China would be wise to ignore them, beceause frankly, if you let other countries decide what YOU need for YOUR military, you’re never going to get anywhere.
[quote=“Lili”]I think China is evil. Look at their past and present. In under 100 years they managed to decimate their ancient culture, have parents killing their own children, and starve anywhere from 30 to 80 million people (we will never know). Today fathers who protest against companies that kill their children are chucked off to jail cells to be tortured and religious/spiritual activity is oppressed by force. Global norms and laws are completely disregarded and murderous regimes are openly supported by the PRC (and no, you cannot compare the US supporting regimes like in Nicaragua to the fuck-all-humanity of China’s support of the DPRK).
Yet, the global community is expected to recognize China as a “great and magnificient” power. :loco:
That definitely warrants a “Kiss My Ass”.[/quote]
[quote=“Elegua”]
China is not just evil, it is 1930’s super-nationalist brown-shirt evil, with a historical chip on its shoulder to boot.[/quote]
Sure China is evil, EEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLLL
So, what are you going to do about it?
Nothing. Keep whoring myself to the godless former commies until I can retire. Peace for our time, I say.
Well my money would be on the big yank carrier group currently parked across from me here in HK should things get serious. That assumes the lasses in the Wanchai bars haven’t turned all the sailors into Manchurian candidates.
This Chinese carrier, it wasn’t built or re-fitted by the same companies working on the high speed rail, perchance? If so I pity the pilots.
HG
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Well my money would be on the big yank carrier group currently parked across from me here in HK should things get serious. That assumes the lasses in the Wanchai bars haven’t turned all the sailors into Manchurian candidates.
This Chinese carrier, it wasn’t built or re-fitted by the same companies working on the high speed rail, perchance? If so I pity the pilots.
HG[/quote]
Sailors drive boats. Pilots drive planes lol
Unless you mean the pilots on the planes on the boat. …Ahhhhhhhh.
What is a “big yank”?
@bohica: You want to know what I’m going to do about this Chinese monstrosity and toe-stepping out of line business?!!?!?
WELL. I’ll TELL you what I’m going to do, alright.
Right after I get some sleep 