7 ms·

How does China’s first aircraft carrier stack up?

39 points by finid 10y ago

s_q_b 10y ago
This should also be discussed in the context of the first combat usage of an Admiral Kuznetsov-class carrier, which Russia began today. After passing through the English Channel, the Admiral Kuznetsov, accompanied by a Russian carrier group comprising most of the Northern Fleet including a nuclear-powered battlecruiser, established station, and began a renewed aerial bombardment on the Syrian city of Aleppo. Over the next few months, we can expect the dominance of the United States Navy to be increasingly challenged, as the other great powers try to determine the limits of the President-Elect's isolationism.
- gnipgnip 10y ago
  Erm. Isolationism = not helping ISIS (which is in hold of Aleppo) ?
- trynumber9 10y ago
  For a comparison the Kuznetsov is carrying 3 Mig-29K and maybe twice as many Su-33 [1]. And here's what a USN CVN looks like on its way to deployment [2]. I'm too lazy to count the aircraft. [1]: http://i.imgur.com/egMni6q.jpg http://i.imgur.com/egMni6q.jpg [2]: http://i.imgur.com/IRlG9ti.jpg http://i.imgur.com/IRlG9ti.jpg
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    Yes, there's no comparison between the Kuznetsov-class and any of the United States supercarriers, or the Charles de Gaulle. But the Russian actions are a means of power projection, saber rattling against the other great powers. After all, whenever there's a world event, one of the first questions asked by the United States leadership is, "Where is the nearest carrier group?" There is no longer a unipolar hegemony in Eurasia. That's the message these maneuvers, and indeed the Chinese acquisition of this carrier itself, are intended to convey.
  - mjmahone17 10y ago
    For a Nimitz-class, it looks like ~90 aircraft, or in terms of squadrons, 4 fixed-wing attack squadrons, an electronic attack squadron, an early warning/command squadron, and two helicopter squadrons [1]. While it looks like the Kuznetsov may be capable of carrying twice as many aircraft as pictured, that's the equivalent of one helicopter squadron and one mixed attack/air superiority squadron. Then again, there's a reasonable assumption that Russia's main force projection is due to how much of the populated world is nearly immediately accessible via Russian-controlled land bases, with much less need for force projection across oceans compared to the US. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_C._Stennis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_C._Stennis
  - dingaling 10y ago
    > For a comparison the Kuznetsov is carrying 3 Mig-29K and maybe twice as many Su-33 Though they dropped one of the MiG-29s in the ocean a couple of days ago... But that's still a magnitude more powerful than what most second / third-tier countries can summon from their entire armed forces. For example in Africa, perhaps only Algeria, Morocco, Angola and South Africa would have any hope of taking-on such a force, and that's not even considering the carrier's escorts.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > we can expect the dominance of the United States Navy to be increasingly challenged In terms of military power, the Chinese and Russian navies in no way challenge the U.S. A low-end aircraft carrier is almost meaningless; the two ships are symbolic. It's American political aims and capability that raise questions.
- vacri 10y ago
  The USN isn't really up for threat just yet. They still have more carriers than the rest of the world combined, and their half has twice the tonnage as the ROW half. Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's one carrier, is 55kton. The ten US Nimitz-class carriers average around 105kton. Take away the carriers from the US's allies, and you have a total of around 7 (to the US's 20-odd) - and these non-allied are generally around 25kton (China and Russia have one carrier each at around 55k). The US is a long way from being realistically challenged at sea. Russia's "power projection" in Syria is only a short distance from its supply ports in the Black Sea. The US can put a carrier group anywhere on the planet (well, on the watery bits) and keep it there; neither Russia nor China can do that, either militarily, or politically (local supply).
  - secfirstmd 10y ago
    If you include the USMC attack ships that have Harriers and will take the F35 and helicopters - the gap is even wider.
- hourislate 10y ago
  Russia only has 1 Carrier. It is followed by a Ocean going tug since it breaks down quite frequently. The US would have scraped a like carrier 30 years ago. Reading the article, it took the US 40 years, 12500 aircraft and the death of 8500 pilots to get the Navy and Marines to a point where carrier landings were as safe as land based landings. Russia and China have a long way to go. A very long way to go.
  - flukus 10y ago
    It's a lot easier to catch up than to lead. Especially if your willing to "not play fair".
- Gustomaximus 10y ago
  > Over the next few months, we can expect the dominance of the United States Navy to be increasingly challenged Maybe over the next few decades. Months...nope. Here is aircraft carries. No-one is even close to challenging US. And those closest by number are US aligned. Also look at what is on the carriers. US carriers are in a league of their own for their strike capability. Sort the individual carrier list by tonnage and you will get a perspective on the scale difference of US carriers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_c... Always an interesting fact. The largest air-force in the world is naturally the US airforce. The second largest is the US Navy.
  - obastani 10y ago
    I think this is the link you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_s... Something just struck me -- one day, there's probably going to be a U.S.S. Donald J. Trump.
hackuser 10y ago
Based on my reading, most experts, and maybe a consensus, think aircraft carriers are weapons for the last major war, and will be of little use in the next war between major powers (if such a thing happens). Missiles can travel 2-3 times further than planes, and modern technology makes them very accurate. Therefore the carriers won't get close enough to the battle to fire a shot (or launch a plane), much as carriers kept their predecessors, battleships, out of range and helpless in WWII. Also, a carrier concentrates a very large amount of value in one very juicy target: Maybe $15-20 billion in assets including planes, 5,000 lives, and around 20-33% of available naval air power. An enemy could target a carrier with 1,000 missiles costing $1 million each, and still get a large economic net benefit ($1 billion spent to destroy $15-20 billion + 5,000 casualties). Current plans for high-end war use 'distributed lethality': Spread out the offensive power and assets so one lost ship isn't so costly.
- nickff 10y ago
  The problem is that most of your logic also 'proves' that aircraft would render tanks obsolete; yet tanks and aircraft have existed for quite a long time on the battlefield. The argument you are making is a very common one (and the subject of many Quora posts), yet I would still bet that carriers would be very useful in small and large future conflicts.
  - vacri 10y ago
    The only actors that can actually threaten the destruction of an aircraft carrier have nukes anyway. It's hard to imagine a situation where they're willing to destroy your biggest ship but not be concerned about MAD. I mean, it's a bit hard to do an "oops, my finger slipped!" with the kind of arsenal it would take to destroy a carrier (like the OP's thousand $1M missiles).
    - uuuuiojhcxxbgg 10y ago
      The issue is that we look at MAD as the end of the world. It's not (for countries). There were battle plans in place for an invasion of NATO/Warsaw pact
Animats 10y ago
China's second carrier is definitely under construction, and the third carrier. a larger model, seems to be.[1] The PLAN's near-term goal seems to be dominance of the South China Sea and the strait of Taiwan, everything inside the "nine dash line". (Or the "ten dash line" version, which goes outside Taiwan.) That's consistent with their land-based anti-ship missiles, new large Coast Guard cutter type ships, and airfields being built on expanded islands in the South China Sea. China now has some blue-water naval capability. So far, it's been used mostly to protect China's supply chain, in anti-piracy operations. That's good practice for operating far from home base. This worries some people. There are very few countries today with a military that can operate effectively on a large scale far from home. China may want to join the superpower club. [1] http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/model-chinas-next-aircraft-carrier http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/model-chi...

39 points by finid 10y ago

s_q_b 10y ago

This should also be discussed in the context of the first combat usage of an Admiral Kuznetsov-class carrier, which Russia began today. After passing through the English Channel, the Admiral Kuznetsov, accompanied by a Russian carrier group comprising most of the Northern Fleet including a nuclear-powered battlecruiser, established station, and began a renewed aerial bombardment on the Syrian city of Aleppo. Over the next few months, we can expect the dominance of the United States Navy to be increasingly challenged, as the other great powers try to determine the limits of the President-Elect's isolationism.

gnipgnip 10y ago
Erm. Isolationism = not helping ISIS (which is in hold of Aleppo) ?
trynumber9 10y ago
For a comparison the Kuznetsov is carrying 3 Mig-29K and maybe twice as many Su-33 [1]. And here's what a USN CVN looks like on its way to deployment [2]. I'm too lazy to count the aircraft. [1]: http://i.imgur.com/egMni6q.jpg http://i.imgur.com/egMni6q.jpg [2]: http://i.imgur.com/IRlG9ti.jpg http://i.imgur.com/IRlG9ti.jpg
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Yes, there's no comparison between the Kuznetsov-class and any of the United States supercarriers, or the Charles de Gaulle. But the Russian actions are a means of power projection, saber rattling against the other great powers. After all, whenever there's a world event, one of the first questions asked by the United States leadership is, "Where is the nearest carrier group?" There is no longer a unipolar hegemony in Eurasia. That's the message these maneuvers, and indeed the Chinese acquisition of this carrier itself, are intended to convey.
- mjmahone17 10y ago
  For a Nimitz-class, it looks like ~90 aircraft, or in terms of squadrons, 4 fixed-wing attack squadrons, an electronic attack squadron, an early warning/command squadron, and two helicopter squadrons [1]. While it looks like the Kuznetsov may be capable of carrying twice as many aircraft as pictured, that's the equivalent of one helicopter squadron and one mixed attack/air superiority squadron. Then again, there's a reasonable assumption that Russia's main force projection is due to how much of the populated world is nearly immediately accessible via Russian-controlled land bases, with much less need for force projection across oceans compared to the US. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_C._Stennis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_C._Stennis
- dingaling 10y ago
  > For a comparison the Kuznetsov is carrying 3 Mig-29K and maybe twice as many Su-33 Though they dropped one of the MiG-29s in the ocean a couple of days ago... But that's still a magnitude more powerful than what most second / third-tier countries can summon from their entire armed forces. For example in Africa, perhaps only Algeria, Morocco, Angola and South Africa would have any hope of taking-on such a force, and that's not even considering the carrier's escorts.
hackuser 10y ago
> we can expect the dominance of the United States Navy to be increasingly challenged In terms of military power, the Chinese and Russian navies in no way challenge the U.S. A low-end aircraft carrier is almost meaningless; the two ships are symbolic. It's American political aims and capability that raise questions.
vacri 10y ago
The USN isn't really up for threat just yet. They still have more carriers than the rest of the world combined, and their half has twice the tonnage as the ROW half. Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's one carrier, is 55kton. The ten US Nimitz-class carriers average around 105kton. Take away the carriers from the US's allies, and you have a total of around 7 (to the US's 20-odd) - and these non-allied are generally around 25kton (China and Russia have one carrier each at around 55k). The US is a long way from being realistically challenged at sea. Russia's "power projection" in Syria is only a short distance from its supply ports in the Black Sea. The US can put a carrier group anywhere on the planet (well, on the watery bits) and keep it there; neither Russia nor China can do that, either militarily, or politically (local supply).
- secfirstmd 10y ago
  If you include the USMC attack ships that have Harriers and will take the F35 and helicopters - the gap is even wider.
hourislate 10y ago
Russia only has 1 Carrier. It is followed by a Ocean going tug since it breaks down quite frequently. The US would have scraped a like carrier 30 years ago. Reading the article, it took the US 40 years, 12500 aircraft and the death of 8500 pilots to get the Navy and Marines to a point where carrier landings were as safe as land based landings. Russia and China have a long way to go. A very long way to go.
- flukus 10y ago
  It's a lot easier to catch up than to lead. Especially if your willing to "not play fair".
Gustomaximus 10y ago
> Over the next few months, we can expect the dominance of the United States Navy to be increasingly challenged Maybe over the next few decades. Months...nope. Here is aircraft carries. No-one is even close to challenging US. And those closest by number are US aligned. Also look at what is on the carriers. US carriers are in a league of their own for their strike capability. Sort the individual carrier list by tonnage and you will get a perspective on the scale difference of US carriers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_c... Always an interesting fact. The largest air-force in the world is naturally the US airforce. The second largest is the US Navy.
- obastani 10y ago
  I think this is the link you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_s... Something just struck me -- one day, there's probably going to be a U.S.S. Donald J. Trump.

hackuser 10y ago

Based on my reading, most experts, and maybe a consensus, think aircraft carriers are weapons for the last major war, and will be of little use in the next war between major powers (if such a thing happens). Missiles can travel 2-3 times further than planes, and modern technology makes them very accurate. Therefore the carriers won't get close enough to the battle to fire a shot (or launch a plane), much as carriers kept their predecessors, battleships, out of range and helpless in WWII. Also, a carrier concentrates a very large amount of value in one very juicy target: Maybe $15-20 billion in assets including planes, 5,000 lives, and around 20-33% of available naval air power. An enemy could target a carrier with 1,000 missiles costing $1 million each, and still get a large economic net benefit ($1 billion spent to destroy $15-20 billion + 5,000 casualties). Current plans for high-end war use 'distributed lethality': Spread out the offensive power and assets so one lost ship isn't so costly.

nickff 10y ago
The problem is that most of your logic also 'proves' that aircraft would render tanks obsolete; yet tanks and aircraft have existed for quite a long time on the battlefield. The argument you are making is a very common one (and the subject of many Quora posts), yet I would still bet that carriers would be very useful in small and large future conflicts.
- vacri 10y ago
  The only actors that can actually threaten the destruction of an aircraft carrier have nukes anyway. It's hard to imagine a situation where they're willing to destroy your biggest ship but not be concerned about MAD. I mean, it's a bit hard to do an "oops, my finger slipped!" with the kind of arsenal it would take to destroy a carrier (like the OP's thousand $1M missiles).
  - uuuuiojhcxxbgg 10y ago
    The issue is that we look at MAD as the end of the world. It's not (for countries). There were battle plans in place for an invasion of NATO/Warsaw pact

Animats 10y ago

China's second carrier is definitely under construction, and the third carrier. a larger model, seems to be.[1] The PLAN's near-term goal seems to be dominance of the South China Sea and the strait of Taiwan, everything inside the "nine dash line". (Or the "ten dash line" version, which goes outside Taiwan.) That's consistent with their land-based anti-ship missiles, new large Coast Guard cutter type ships, and airfields being built on expanded islands in the South China Sea. China now has some blue-water naval capability. So far, it's been used mostly to protect China's supply chain, in anti-piracy operations. That's good practice for operating far from home base. This worries some people. There are very few countries today with a military that can operate effectively on a large scale far from home. China may want to join the superpower club. [1] http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/model-chinas-next-aircraft-carrier http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/model-chi...