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

[F-22Raptor]

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

 

[C130]

chinese carriers are more of a trophy symbol than a threat IMO. they'll operate close to china for the next decade ormore. if they expand to Latin American and Africa then I would worry and when they gain more experience.

if they got money and are in a building frenzy what's the harm in building them.

 

[haman10]

chinese carriers are more of a trophy symbol than a threat IMO.

lol

 

[That Guy]

China is a relatively new operator of ACs, so this is expected; The Chinese military probably already knows this.

These carriers are more for geopolitical purposes, to show that it has the capability to project force far beyond it's borders, and to protect it's territorial claims.

 

[Penguin]

Assuming China seeks carriers to counter the US carriers, which may not at all be the role they really envision.

 

[C130]

Japan+Vietnam+U.S intelligence would counter China aircraft carriers. we would know where Chinese aircraft carriers are at all times.

 

[TaiShang]

Japan+Vietnam+U.S intelligence would counter China aircraft carriers. we would know where Chinese aircraft carriers are at all times.

@Nihonjin1051 , is that true? Is Japan conspiring against China by spying on it and sharing the intel with the US?

If that's so, I guess all the "sharing a history and living together" rhetoric is no more than hot air.

Beefing up Japan's capabilities against potential threats is one thing and understandable. But conspiring with others against a neighbor is a whole different story.

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

 

[jmacmac]

Japan+Vietnam+U.S intelligence would counter China aircraft carriers. we would know where Chinese aircraft carriers are at all times.

u mean like this.

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

 

[C130]

u mean like this.

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

subs are the most dangerous enemy to a aircraft carrier. we know that best

 

[Penguin]

Keep in mind what Russia designed its carriers for: sea "bastions" close to home, where its SSBNs were kept safe at sea. (or that was the idea at least). There are indications that the Chinese are adopting this concept, fortifying the Bohai Sea for use by its growing number of ballistic missile submarines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_(naval)
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

u mean like this.

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

Which says nothing.

 

[gambit]

u mean like this.

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

Try this...

Chinese Submarines | Page 4

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

You know what make US fear the most is not Chinese carrier but our intention to build the carrier, for over years US military experts and specialists were trying to influence China and deter China from going to acquire aircraft carrier by publishing a ton of bullshit article claiming that aircraft carrier is just a sitting duck when facing multi-vectors missile then when they realise that China didn't take the bait, they start get anger and sold China's threat around the world especially in Asia.

Same for Hypersonic missile, not because we're more advance than US but our intention to not let US to take advantage of this system and force US to even do more...we're not in arm race but to force US to race against it own shadow which the fear to see someone else exceed them.

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

 

[jhungary]

You know what make US fear the most is not Chinese carrier but our intention to build the carrier, for over years US military experts and specialists were trying to influence China and deter China from going to acquire aircraft carrier by publishing a ton of bullshit article claiming that aircraft carrier is just a sitting duck when facing multi-vectors missile then when they realise that China didn't take the bait, they start get anger and sold China's threat around the world especially in Asia.

Same for Hypersonic missile, not because we're more advance than US but our intention to not let US to take advantage of this system and force US to even do more...we're not in arm race but to force US to race against it own shadow which the fear to see someone else exceed them.

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

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.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

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.

Are you sure that we pumped out first that DF21 would render US carrier useless?? you better off go to ask those paranoid American Admiral in Pacific, I dont really think our officials or serious & respectuous people will make such claim beside some sensational media or military fans. Sure we sold DF21 to Saudi because we're not scare of US CIA otherwise we will just keep for ourself.

How China will use the carrier is same how we learn to use destroyer or other surface combattant, learn to fight and fight to learn. I guess having a carrier is still better than nothing and we're not afraid of losing qualitative and quantitative to US otherwise we might give up as well our nukes because in term of quantity and quality, US is also exceed us in this domain. But the question to you is why China didn't give up despite the fact we know that we're still inferior than US in both in quantity and quality???

 

[jhungary]

Are you sure that we pumped out first that DF21 would render US carrier useless?? you better off go to ask those paranoid American Admiral in Pacific, I dont really think our officials or serious & respectuous people will make such claim beside some sensational media or military fans. Sure we sould DF21 to Saudi because we're not scare of US CIA otherwise we will just keep for ourself.

How China will use the carrier is same how we learn to use destroyer or other surface combattant, learn to fight and fight to learn, I guess having a carrier is still better than nothing and we're not afraid of losing qualitative and quantitative to US otherwise we might give up as well our nukes because in term of quantity and quality, US is also exceed us in this domain. But the question to you is why China didn't give up despite the fact we know that we're still inferior than US in both in quantity and quality???

lol the US adniral said IF the DF21 work in its theoretical way then there are no capable defence over it, and that was 2 or 3 years agos. In fact thise "panic" admiral response to the DF21 threat almost immediately to push the SM3 defence net up on line

The US admiral is not the one saying Chinese DF21 will render US carrier in the pacific useless, but it was the Chinese Sensationalist label DF21 as Carrier Killers and sensationalise how DF21 would render US carrier useless...

And to your question, I could ask you the same question to you, if China already trump or will trump JMSDF now or in the future, why JMSDF bother to introduce new ship?

What you are asking is not the answer to my question, the answer lies in how China going to conduct Carrier operation in an restricted envelope, the objective is clear but the how is unclear.

It never matter in term of quantity, but it matters how you use your limited resource, did the US back off in WW2 after Pearl Harbor and facing 2 greatest battleship in the pacific? They fight on as thats the objective at hand, but how? Thats the millions dollars question.

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