China's aircraft carriers would be a liability in a conflict with the US: Kanwa

[Gufi]

The Chinese carriers may not be meant for aggressive purposes but to keep its sea lanes open. There is no war between the USA and China. The article assumes that there might be one in the near future. The Carriers will also improve with time and will be enough to manage to keep the Chinese shores safe.
As for projecting power Chinese are doing that through economical means and that can be seen in Africa and now recently in South America.
Technologically America is leaps and bounds ahead of China but with the Chinese catching up in essential technology. The production speed of Chinese can not be underestimated nor can the results of the massive defence budgets. The point that is missed when comparing the defence budgets is that the Americans pay multiple times more to researchers and employees then Chinese do and buy from a very profit oriented market. The profit on most arms is due to the technological superiority I agree but when China does reach a similar level the same things can be made at a much cheaper cost.
As it stands there will be no direct war between USA and China and eventually they will redefine their spheres of influence because as it stands any war would have consequences which would eventually cripple the world at large. China realises this and its stance is more proactive then it was but there is no war warmongering going on in China nor is there a urgency in arming themselves.
The Chinese have increased their defence budget because they have completed a phase in their plan of modernising China and the proof can be seen in improved infrastructure and investment in Universities and education as well. What is seen as a threat is more of a nation moving up in the development scale and after proving themselves as a Industrial powerhouse they wish to achieve a modern, effective standing army.
It defies logic that China and USA will ever come to each others throats militarily because it would benefit neither nation. It is only analysts and media reporters who find a quick buck by making sensational headlines pitting their forces against each other. In reality the governments of both nations are making sure that there are more lines of communication and there are no accidental misunderstanding.
With respect the people of both nations should behave maturely without thinking the other is the enemy and learn to get along in harmony. War between these nations will end up in a nuclear holocaust which will leave the planet uninhabitable for any nation, not just these two.

Let's hope this scenario is only in the head of the above ultra nationalist.

By the way, operating a carrier is not the same as operating a destroyer.

If Amecians can comfort themself that China carrier is not a threat....than good for them.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I don't see aircraft carrier used in a defensive role. They are primarily used as tools of power projection.

 

[TaiShang]

LOL.

New Setback: F-35s Won’t Be Able to Conduct Close-Air-Support Until 2020
01:01 11.03.2015(updated 01:03 11.03.2015)

The Department of Defense’s much maligned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ran into yet another setback Tuesday when it was announced that the aircraft will not reach full close-air-support potential until 2022.

Unlike previous precision-guided air-dropped weapons, the Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) has the ability to track and hit moving targets from up to 40 miles. It will enter service in 2017.

The F-35 however, will not have the software package required to operate the bomb until 2022.

The delay will reduce the F-35’s ability to provide close-air support to ground troops, and raises questions about the aircraft’s ability to adequately replace the A-10 Warthog if Congress allows the Air Force to retire it.

Air Force leaders want to retire the A-10 by February 2019 so it can transfer the resources supporting the aircraft to the development of the F-35, which will be one of many aircraft that will backfill the A-10.

The SDB II will not even fit onto the F-35B – the Marine Corps variant – without modifications to the aircraft’s weapons bay. But the Pentagon is in no rush to make those changes, because the weapon still will not work until the correct software package is installed.

“When we get to the (software upgrade) of the F-35s those are going to be great CAS (close air support) platforms – when we get there. So we’ve got to continue to move down that with respect to the systems,” Air Force Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, Commander of Air Combat Command, told reporters on March 6.

The SDB II uses a guidance system known as a “tri-mode” seeker, which can direct the weapon using millimeter wave radar, uncooled imaging infrared guidance and semi-active laser technology.

“Really, in the close-in CAS fight, and the most challenging being danger close where you have adversaries and friendlies in very close proximity – we have to be able to support the ground component at that point. We need the ability to deliver weapons rapidly. We need the high magazine, we need precision and we need to be able to control the yield,” Carlisle said.

Part of the Joint Strike Fighter program’s developmental strategy includes a series of incremental software drops, each of which adds new capability. The drop that will make the F-35 capable of operating the SBD II is not scheduled to take place until 2022.

The Marine Corps’ F-35B is slated to reach operational status following a software drop later this year. The Air Force plans to reach operational status with its F-35A in 2016 using the next software update.



Read more: New Setback: F-35s Won’t Be Able to Conduct Close-Air-Support Until 2020 / Sputnik International

 

[dez01]

in my thought conflicts between US&CN, finances will be the weapon directly. conflicts will be out of control ，if in arms.

 

[sicsheep]

funny you should say that, but did the Chinese pump out article saying DF21 would render the US carrier in the pacific useless? Do you know China sold DF21 to Saudi Arabia and CIA have inspected it already?

the point if not your carrier is not as strong as mind, or BS like that, but how do you go on using your carrier...

In number , China is always going to lose to the US which have 20 aircraft carrier before LPD, the problem is, and always have been, how China use their carrier, not bow China build their carrier.

The ones sold to Saudi is not DF-21D... maybe CIA should have looked more closely

 

[jhungary]

The ones sold to Saudi is not DF-21D... maybe CIA should have looked more closely

did I say DF21D??

You should probably should have your own eyes check before going on about someone else?

 

[HariPrasad]

The stark gap in numbers, technical capabilities and experience mean that China's aircraft carrier will be a "burden" as opposed to a "weapon" in a hypothetical head-to-head naval battle with the United States, says the Kanwa Defense Review, a Chinese-language military magazine based in Canada.

The magazine's March issue said it will not matter that China will have three aircraft carriers within the next 10 years after adding two more carriers to its one and only carrier so far, the Liaoning.

By then, the US will still maintain a significant advantage with its fleet of 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, though the bigger problem for China is that the US will always have operational and technical superiority in any carrier confrontation.

According to the report, the situation would be similar to that of the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982. In the 74-day conflict in which the UK retook the islands following the Argentine invasion, Argentina's ARA Veinticinco de Mayo aircraft carrier more or less became a burden because of a sizable gap in carrier combat capabilities and experience.

The UK deployed at least two nuclear submarines — the biggest threat to aircraft carriers — one of which, HMS Conqueror, sank the Argentine light cruiser General Belgrano, after which the remainder of the Argentine fleet returned to port and ceded naval control to the British task force for the rest of the conflict. The UK won because it was much better at protecting its aircraft carriers and took advantage of Argentina's lack of anti-submarine capabilities, the report said, adding that the UK also had far more operational experience and air saturation attack capabilities, which is lethal for aircraft carriers in modern combat.

If China were to take on the US in a naval conflict today, the Liaoning would be as ineffective as the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo proved to be, the report said. The US has nearly 90 years of experience with aircraft carrier task forces, more than any other country in the world, and despite its rapid advancements, China's anti-submarine capabilities and carrier protection techniques will still be behind the US and Japan after 10 or even 20 years.

China's anti-submarine aircraft are more than a generation behind in terms of technology compared to the US and Japan. Japan has more than 80 P-3 Orion four-engine turboprop anti-submarine aircraft, while the US has the more advanced P-8 Poseidon. China on the other hand has only two Y-8GX6 — or Gaoxin-6 — anti-submarine aircraft.

Furthermore, US aircraft carriers can carry five to eight S-3B sub-hunting aircraft and five to eight SH-60F/R anti-submarine helicopters, while China only started testing the Changhe Z-18 anti-submarine helicopter last July.

Beneath the waves, the US has 61 nuclear submarines, while Japan has about 16 world-class conventionally powered subs. All of them are equipped with long-range anti-ship missiles.

In the air, the US will be switching over the next 30 years to the highly advanced F-35C/B, which has better stealth capabilities and long-distance attacking power than any of China's fighter jets.

In terms of functionality, the US has a diverse range of anti-ship missiles including the 370-kilometer-range AGM-158, the 130-km-range AGM-154 and the 270-km-range AGM84H/K, with long-range anti-ship missiles capable of hitting targets nearly 1,000 km away still in development. In a saturated air attack, the US can launch more than a hundred warheads in under a minute, more than any current missile defense system can fend off.

Accordingly, the report said the only move for China in a hypothetical naval conflict would be to avoid an aircraft carrier battle, but it also means that the PLA will need to substantially improve its air defense and anti-submarine capabilities as well increase its land-to-air firepower and number of fighter jets.

Liaoning carrier would be a liability in a war with US: Kanwa｜Politics｜News｜WantChinaTimes.com

There is nothing new in this. Everybody know that. This is true for most of chinese weapons.

 

[sicsheep]

did I say DF21D??

You should probably should have your own eyes check before going on about someone else?

DF -21D is the variant designed for anti-ship, so you are saying CIA did get to inspect the DF-21D then?

US also inspected Russian nukes, I guess you have already figured out a way to counter it too ?

 

[HariPrasad]

LOL.

New Setback: F-35s Won’t Be Able to Conduct Close-Air-Support Until 2020
01:01 11.03.2015(updated 01:03 11.03.2015)

The Department of Defense’s much maligned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ran into yet another setback Tuesday when it was announced that the aircraft will not reach full close-air-support potential until 2022.

Unlike previous precision-guided air-dropped weapons, the Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) has the ability to track and hit moving targets from up to 40 miles. It will enter service in 2017.

The F-35 however, will not have the software package required to operate the bomb until 2022.

The delay will reduce the F-35’s ability to provide close-air support to ground troops, and raises questions about the aircraft’s ability to adequately replace the A-10 Warthog if Congress allows the Air Force to retire it.

Air Force leaders want to retire the A-10 by February 2019 so it can transfer the resources supporting the aircraft to the development of the F-35, which will be one of many aircraft that will backfill the A-10.

The SDB II will not even fit onto the F-35B – the Marine Corps variant – without modifications to the aircraft’s weapons bay. But the Pentagon is in no rush to make those changes, because the weapon still will not work until the correct software package is installed.

“When we get to the (software upgrade) of the F-35s those are going to be great CAS (close air support) platforms – when we get there. So we’ve got to continue to move down that with respect to the systems,” Air Force Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, Commander of Air Combat Command, told reporters on March 6.

The SDB II uses a guidance system known as a “tri-mode” seeker, which can direct the weapon using millimeter wave radar, uncooled imaging infrared guidance and semi-active laser technology.

“Really, in the close-in CAS fight, and the most challenging being danger close where you have adversaries and friendlies in very close proximity – we have to be able to support the ground component at that point. We need the ability to deliver weapons rapidly. We need the high magazine, we need precision and we need to be able to control the yield,” Carlisle said.

Part of the Joint Strike Fighter program’s developmental strategy includes a series of incremental software drops, each of which adds new capability. The drop that will make the F-35 capable of operating the SBD II is not scheduled to take place until 2022.

The Marine Corps’ F-35B is slated to reach operational status following a software drop later this year. The Air Force plans to reach operational status with its F-35A in 2016 using the next software update.



Read more: New Setback: F-35s Won’t Be Able to Conduct Close-Air-Support Until 2020 / Sputnik International

F35 with some support can kill lioning.

F-35 poses a danger to the Liaoning but can’t defeat it alone: Chinese Expert

 

[jhungary]

DF -21D is the variant designed for anti-ship, so you are saying CIA did get to inspect the DF-21D then?

US also inspected Russian nukes, I guess you have already figured out a way to counter it too ?

lol, what the F were u talking about? Since when did I say CIA inspected DF21D and since when even do US need any counter of DF21D?

 

[sicsheep]

lol, what the F were u talking about? Since when did I say CIA inspected DF21D and since when even do US need any counter of DF21D?

lol so why the F did you post this ? It must have been relevant to this thread somehow?


"funny you should say that, but did the Chinese pump out article saying DF21 would render the US carrier in the pacific useless? Do you know China sold DF21 to Saudi Arabia and CIA have inspected it already?"


DF-21 was sold to Saudi years before DF-21D was developed, DF-21 was a MRBM with standard guidance ...
so why was CIA inspecting it (which we would love to see an article on) relevant to the discussion?

 

[jhungary]

lol so why the F did you post this ? It must have been relevant to this thread somehow?


"funny you should say that, but did the Chinese pump out article saying DF21 would render the US carrier in the pacific useless? Do you know China sold DF21 to Saudi Arabia and CIA have inspected it already?"


DF-21 was sold to Saudi years before DF-21D was developed, DF-21 was a MRBM with standard guidance ...
so why was CIA inspecting it (which we would love to see an article on) relevant to the discussion?

dude, are you making point by yourselves and try to put it in my mouth?

Fact is, I never said Saudi have DF21D, i said Saudi have DF21 and that CIA is inspecting DF21 so they wont be able to carry Nuke warhead.

lol what that have to do with DF21D? I never said anything about saudi have or CIA inspect DF21D.

Show me where did I say that?

 

[xunzi]

LOL WantChinaTime again. There should be a rule that whoever use WantChinaTime as source deserve an immediate ban.

Now to my American friends and all cheerleader. Talk is cheap. Can we agree on that? As long as we see no threat to our national interest, we will continue to do what we always love to do. LOL

 

[TaiShang]

F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane — War Is Boring — Medium