Military Review

Why do they all need aircraft carriers? China

59
Significant event: almost simultaneously on our beloved The National Interest there were simply incomparable articles on one topic. Aircraft carrier. One of them belongs to the pen of James Holmes, head of the department of naval strategy at the naval college and co-author of the book Red Star Over the Pacific Ocean, which is quite even in intensity of passions.



James Holmes looked very closely at the concept of the development of an aircraft carrier fleet China. Let's try to evaluate everything Holmes said from our point of view.

Holmes believes that aircraft carriers today are battleships of the modern era. If a country has aircraft carriers, then it can be considered a first-class maritime power.


In principle, one can almost agree with this. “In principle” and “almost” - this is because the list of host countries is quite peculiar. Except for the ships under construction, 11 aircraft carriers are in service with the United States, 2 each are in service with Italy and China, France, Great Britain, Spain, India and Thailand have one each. Russia and Brazil have one more aircraft carrier each, but they are not at the stage of operational readiness.

So the club of aircraft-carrying countries looks ambiguous, especially in terms of the participation of Thailand, Brazil and Russia. Although Spain and Italy are very difficult to call the first-class maritime powers, and for this it is enough to look at the payroll of the fleets. And the presence of aircraft carriers in them (with 8 or 16 "Harriers" in the case of the Italian "aircraft carriers") does not make them first-class fleets.

But our goal today is China.


Does China need aircraft carriers? No and yes at the same time. Tactically, the People's Liberation Army of China (PLA) does not particularly need such aircraft carriers, which are available in the PLA Navy. The aircraft carrier is not at all defensive weapon, but quite the opposite.

So for the defense of the western part of the Pacific Ocean and the Chinese Sea, strike groups with aircraft carriers may not be needed. For this it is enough and aviation from coastal airfields and coastal missile systems.

But aircraft carrier task forces can follow the strategic plans of the PRC and exert influence far beyond the borders of China's maritime zone. In the image and likeness of American AUG.

Considering the presence of two aircraft carriers, as well as the general condition of the PLA Navy, it can be concluded that the creation of two strike groups capable of solving strategic tasks far beyond China's borders is not a fantasy and not wasted money.


Thus, China is quite capable of claiming to exercise full control over part of the Pacific Ocean, becoming as powerful a strategic player as the US Navy or the Japanese Navy.

Today, China is a completely self-sufficient country in terms of defense, the potential of the armed forces of which can, by force of its navy, coupled with weapons stationed on the coast, neutralize any hostile fleet off its coast and, moreover, block sea routes for both military and merchant shipping. ...

This is especially true in the age of missile and (especially) high-precision weapons, capable of effectively hitting targets at a distance of several hundred miles from the coast.


In general, the struggle for control of the sea is no longer limited to the battle formations of ships fighting each other on the high seas. The power of the land can be the power of the sea.

Therefore, even such modest aircraft carriers as the Chinese are valuable because they demonstrate naval power. It is clear that not to the United States (albeit in part to them too), but to the neighbors, which may become potential rivals tomorrow. For example, Vietnam or the Philippines.

Here you need to understand that a neighbor whom you have convinced of your superiority and strength is more likely to become your ally than decides to test you for strength.

Operative groups with the participation of aircraft carriers increase the chance of effectively resolving issues against the most powerful force, which, of course, means the US fleet. More precisely, the US Pacific Fleet plus allies like Japan.

Why do they all need aircraft carriers? China

However, the paradox of our time is that large ships such as aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers are not a guarantee of an unequivocal victory. There are other, and no less effective ways of inflicting damage on the enemy.

The practice of recent years has shown that ships of a rather small tonnage, such as diesel submarines or corvettes, can deliver strikes no less tangible than ships of large classes.


Swarms of attack UAVs, corvettes and missile boats with the support of shore-based aviation and ground anti-ship complexes will be able to destroy anti-ship and cruise missiles, enemy aircraft with the same ease with which larger ships can do it.

This is the basis of the A2 / AD concept for the PLA of China, based precisely on the use of long-range missile systems and mosquito fleets, which simply will not allow the enemy to approach the shores or enter the zone of responsibility without acceptable losses.

But it turns out the following: the more China has the means to implement the A2 / AD concept, the more chances it has for effective use of the surface component of the fleet, including aircraft carriers, away from its shores.

That is, having entrusted A2 / AD with the containment of the enemy's naval forces, China can use part of its forces to control territories (including disputed ones) at a considerable distance from the coastline.

If cheap boats can do the job properly, why not use them? And the ships of the oceanic zone will be able to safely operate in the oceanic zone.

It turns out that the more A2 / AD assets China has, the more firepower the PLA can use in the most important places and at decisive moments.


This does not at all devalue the large ships of the Chinese Navy. On the contrary, with a clear planning of strategic operations, coupled with proper diplomacy, and even judging by how aggressively China is pursuing its foreign policy towards nearby regions ...

We are beginning to observe a serious attitude towards the presence of the PRC in important promising theaters: in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, the entrance to the Indian Ocean from the Pacific Ocean. Yes, these areas are essential for China's energy security and therefore economic well-being.

The more surface fleet the Chinese command can release from service in A2 / AD near their home, the more powerful the expeditionary fleet can be sent to remote corners of the Indian Ocean, such as Djibouti, where China's first overseas military outpost is located; or Gwadar, a Chinese-funded seaport in West Pakistan that borders the approaches to the Gulf; or disputed territories, which China has more than enough. Senkaku, Palawan, Spratly and so on.

The PLA navy will maintain its presence in South Asia even more than in East Asia. Why? More significant region.

In addition, the PLA can solve all military and police actions in East Asia using ground forces. That is, an anti-ship ballistic missile launched from China is optimal for the A2 / AD Pacific region.

But operations in the Indian Ocean for the PLA Navy (both police and military) will have to be carried out by ship forces. Including "friendship" against the constant political rival - India. And the Indian fleet will operate in its region, with the support of its coastal bases.

Thus, sea-based aviation retains its value for expeditionary missions, especially for those deployed outside the A2 / AD security zone and beyond the reach of PLA ground airfields.

Bottom line: aircraft carriers in the Chinese version can be very, very useful in solving extra-regional problems.


One, let's say, promising American politician who at that time (in 1897) served as Deputy Secretary of the Navy in the administration of President W. McKinley, a certain Theodore Roosevelt, discovered the correct relationship between coastal defense and oceanic combat fleet.


And already as President of the United States, in 1908, Theodore Roosevelt sketched a scheme for the division of labor at the "battleship conference" at the Naval College. Coastal artillery must operate in tandem with small torpedo ships to repel a naval attack. Gunners and torpedo men will guard American harbors, freeing up the navy for operations on the high seas.

A well-thought-out strategy would make the combat fleet a “free fleet,” the long arm of American foreign policy, away from the American seashore.

Actually, that's what happened. And sometimes the new is the well-forgotten old. But Theodore Roosevelt, and his numerous followers, and Chinese President Xi Jinping - all of them highly valued capital ships as the main instrument of sea power.

Does China need aircraft carriers? Definitely yes. But not close to their harbors and cities, but at a distance, on foreign shores.
Author:
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 4 November 2020 05: 45
    +8
    The growing economic and military power makes even the United States reckon with China.
    1. Civil
      Civil 4 November 2020 10: 09
      13
      And who said that the PRC thinks only about today? And where did the author get the idea that the PRC only thinks about defense? Unlike one capitalist country in the third world in the decline stage, the Chinese communists think five years ahead.
      1. Pessimist22
        Pessimist22 4 November 2020 10: 17
        +9
        I can't know what they think, but they do a lot, quickly and do good things.
      2. ilia3075
        ilia3075 12 November 2020 20: 20
        0
        This is why the communists of China think for five years ahead, having learned from the bitter and unenviable experience of the communists of the world's first socialist state, and, as you put it, one capitalist country of the world in its decline is reaping the fruits of the communist assholes of the world's first socialist state.
  3. Far B
    Far B 4 November 2020 06: 05
    21
    Holmes believes that aircraft carriers today are battleships of the modern era. If a country has aircraft carriers, then it can be considered a first-class maritime power.
    Heh. To be considered a first-class maritime power and be her - absolutely different things. Italy was part of WWII, being considered an absolutely first-class maritime power. In fact, she lost everything that was possible, showing absolutely nothing. (Memoirs of the macaroni naval commanders are generally touching - everything around is to blame, except for themselves). So the point is still not in the number of large battalions (main calibers), but in the very lion, ready to lead the herd of rams.
    1. StarTroopers
      StarTroopers 4 November 2020 12: 20
      +3
      Quote: Far In
      Holmes believes that aircraft carriers today are battleships of the modern era. If a country has aircraft carriers, then it can be considered a first-class maritime power.
      Heh. To be considered a first-class maritime power and be her - absolutely different things. Italy was part of WWII, being considered an absolutely first-class maritime power. In fact, she lost everything that was possible, showing absolutely nothing. (Memoirs of the macaroni naval commanders are generally touching - everything around is to blame, except for themselves). So the point is still not in the number of large battalions (main calibers), but in the very lion, ready to lead the herd of rams.

      The sailors fought in the same way as others. The command did not have the political will. Well, flaws in the doctrine.
  4. Sergey M. Karasev
    Sergey M. Karasev 4 November 2020 06: 15
    +3
    If the Chinese have deployed a military air base in the Gwadar region, then they will no longer have an urgent need for their aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea.
  5. Eug
    Eug 4 November 2020 07: 11
    +7
    Straits of Malacca and Sunda - without a breakthrough through them from the Indian Ocean to the Chinese seas it is impossible to get. Most likely, an amphibious operation is planned to control (in case of hostilities) these straits, and for this, AUGi are needed. Then it will be possible to relocate aviation to the captured airfields. To paraphrase Pereslegin, an aircraft carrier is a means of transferring the action of aviation to the desired area of ​​the world ocean and not only.
    1. novel66
      novel66 4 November 2020 10: 26
      +2
      in a narrow strait, an aircraft carrier group is a sweet target, the British must remember. Indians are also not one of those who wipe with a finger
      1. Eug
        Eug 4 November 2020 13: 04
        +5
        Not for actions in the straits, but for their capture. In the straits, even the maneuver of one aircraft carrier against the wind (for takeoff) is difficult, not to mention the maneuvers of the escort ships. And there is nothing to say about anti-aircraft and anti-missile maneuvers.
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 5 November 2020 00: 34
          -2
          Quote: Eug
          Not for actions in the straits, but for their capture.

          but will they capture without acting?
          Quote: Eug
          And there is nothing to say about anti-aircraft and anti-missile maneuvers.

          anti-missile? so that the aircraft carrier dodged the anti-ship missile system ??? belay
  6. Mytholog
    Mytholog 4 November 2020 07: 38
    +2
    does not particularly need such aircraft carriers, which are in service with the PLA Navy

    And they are, in fact, just experienced. "Attempt at writing". The Chinese did not have a supercarrier for copying, so they dance from the wall, not being petty about the costs.
    The third, which is being built now, will already be closer in characteristics to the likely enemy.
  7. Doccor18
    Doccor18 4 November 2020 08: 47
    +8
    If a country has aircraft carriers, then it can be considered a first-class maritime power.

    Exactly so, without any "in principle" and "almost".
    So the club of aircraft carrier countries looks ambiguous, especially in terms of the participation of Thailand, Brazil and Russia.

    Why?
    Although Spain and Italy are very difficult to call first-class maritime ...

    And what is not first-class.? Both have a good fleet. And shipbuilding is generally at an excellent level. Navantia and Fincantieri are some of the world's giants.
    An aircraft carrier is not a defensive weapon at all, but quite the opposite.

    The aircraft carrier is the most versatile combat vehicle in the fleet ...
    The practice of recent years has shown that ships of a rather small tonnage, such as diesel submarines or corvettes, can deliver strikes no less tangible than ships of large classes.

    Oh well...
    Does China need aircraft carriers?

    And not only China.
    And without its own AUG, China will simply be strangled in the long run ..
  8. Doctor
    Doctor 4 November 2020 08: 56
    +1
    Gunners and torpedo men will guard American harbors, freeing up the navy for operations on the high seas.

    Actually, that's what happened. And sometimes the new is the well-forgotten old.

    Yeah. Roosevelt guessed.
    To protect the coast - cannons and torpedo boats.wink
  9. Revolver
    Revolver 4 November 2020 09: 00
    -7
    Skokly, bastards, vtyuhali "Varyag" to the Chinese on the cheap.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 4 November 2020 09: 27
      +7
      Who vtyuhal this ??? The head is already running around.



      The serial one is being completed, and 3 in 8 months were assembled to the level of installation of the skeleton.


      Moreover, there is an opinion that 3 will be of another project - in the format of an aircraft carrier UAV.


      If anything, the construction of the head began at the end of 2018, and the assembly began in May 2019 - when the space became vacant, after the descent of DKVD 071.

      In total, they have 2 more AUG - you can add 3 amphibious groups with UDC in the heart and 2-3 DKVD 071 projects on support and massaging.

      Well, and they have enough support for all this. Only the destroyers for 64 missiles - 052D in the mega series delivered 17-18 ships to the PLA.
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 4 November 2020 22: 34
        12
        Greetings! hi
        A huge training center for carrier-based aviation pilots was built on the shores of the Bohai Bay. With jumps, aerofinishers and experimental EM catapults. About the "Chinese shipbuilding conveyor" in general "there are no words - only emotions." The mood is very serious. Unlike our "floundering bay".
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 5 November 2020 05: 55
        +2
        Quote: donavi49
        Who got it?
        "Varyag" could have taken away from Ukraine themselves, as well as "Admiral Lobov" (cruiser "Ukraine"), but we are a "land power" ... Moreover, "Gorshkov" was originally given to the Indians in addition to the Mig deal. 29. Here, "Admiral Gorshkov", definitely, stupidly pissed away our "effective managers", the traders buy and sell.
  10. Maks1995
    Maks1995 4 November 2020 09: 14
    +5
    There were previously articles here on what an aircraft carrier should and can do with a group.
    In general, it covers almost everything within a radius of 1000 km. Submarine, Aviation, Radars, etc.
    And accordingly, it disperses the enemy.
    + floating warehouse close by.
  11. K298rtm
    K298rtm 4 November 2020 09: 58
    +2
    [to solve strategic problems far beyond the borders of China]
    Question to the distinguished author: What strategic tasks can the PRC AUG solve?
    1. novel66
      novel66 4 November 2020 11: 19
      +2
      participate in the capture of Taiwan ... probably ..
  12. novel66
    novel66 4 November 2020 10: 27
    -9
    fashion is set by the United States, they will not have aviks and the whole world will wake up. their time has passed, it seems
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 4 November 2020 11: 17
      10
      AUG is a universal product at sea. Which is suitable for any task, keeping the initiative and offensive. While aviation continues to develop, AUG will not lose its functionality and usefulness.

      Any mega-missiles are a conscious transition to a passive status with the hope that the wunderwaffe will work in real conditions, as in an exercise. At the same time, the side relying on mega-missiles gives up the initiative itself.

      And I will remind you that various developments are constantly underway. Sometimes they fire - over there on Liss, the cannons showed helplessness in front of the new armor and steam ships, like the triremes-pentremes of antiquity, rammed each other. All the fleets of the world have drawn conclusions, and in addition to increasing the power of the shells, they began to push forward torpedo tubes. However, they were never involved and the battle on Liss remained an amazing story.

      Also a little later, the entire British, French and in general any offensive fleet was buried. Small boats with whitehead mines are capable of swarming into a heavy compound and sinking it. Especially in their waters, well, they began to make them for the open sea (for towing by another ship). However, in reality, they showed a complete, absolute failure and a devastating failure was saved only by Rizzo - who accidentally jumped out on the line detachment of Austria-Hungary and conducted a successful attack. As a result, St. Stephen became the only large ship sunk by this wunderwaffe, on which all the leading fleets of the world have relied since the 1890s.

      And you can also remember the submarines. Which progressed, but against the backdrop of the Second World War - even the Germans were further from the goal than in the First World War. Other fleets have generally failed this type of weaponry, despite its large component. For example, the Japanese, who hunted for warships and used boats as cover / reconnaissance when deploying a general engagement. Or the Italians are the same.
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 5 November 2020 01: 05
        -1
        Quote: donavi49
        AUG is a universal product at sea. Which is suitable for any task, keeping the initiative and offensive.

        Can you give an example of how AUG has been able to fulfill these functions in the last 20 years?
        Quote: donavi49
        While aviation continues to develop, AUG will not lose its functionality and usefulness.

        the development of aviation has already led to the fact that it is possible to reach targets from ground bases.
        Quote: donavi49
        Any mega-missiles are a conscious transition to a passive status with the hope that the wunderwaffe will work in real conditions, as in an exercise.

        probably due to this failure of missile technology, all recent AUG operations have been reduced to a flag display from a safe distance.
        Quote: donavi49
        And you can also remember the submarines. Which progressed, but against the backdrop of the Second World War - even the Germans were further from the goal than in the First World War. Other fleets have generally failed this type of weaponry, despite its large component. For example, the Japanese, who hunted for warships and used boats as cover / reconnaissance when deploying a general engagement. Or the Italians are the same.

        this is especially fierce nonsense!
        the first world. one submarine swamp 3 British cruisers "Aboukir", "Hog" and "Cressy".
        the second world. in the first year of the "unlimited war" the Doenitz boys sink 30% of the British merchant fleet.
        American submarines sink Japanese aircraft carriers.
        the end of the 20th century. Falklands War. one British submarine sinks the cruiser and locks the entire Argentine fleet in port.

        the article contains a very correct phrase "Holmes believes that aircraft carriers today are battleships of the modern era.". as in the middle of the 20th century, the dominance of battleships ended, and now the century of aircraft carriers is coming to an end, for objective reasons.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 5 November 2020 09: 19
          +1
          the first world. one submarine swamp 3 British cruisers "Aboukir", "Hog" and "Cressy".


          You forgot unlimited submarine war there. Where the Germans achieved even greater local successes than Doenitz. However, the Germans tried to balance and not drag the US into the war, so stop orders were regularly given.
          England during the First World War lost 7 out of 21 million tons of merchant tonnage. This delayed the delivery of troops and necessary cargo from the colonies to the theater of operations.

          For example, in January 1916, unlimited was allowed. In February, 780 thousand tons were sunk. In March - only 18% of ships reached Britain, in April 21%. At the end of April, the unrestricted order of the Kaiser was again banned.

          And if in WWII, they built it faster than drowned it. Then in the PMV in 17, it was possible to heat up and build 1000 thousand tons in a little less than 3 months. That is, in theory, unlimited submarine warfare could take off, because in 1917 an absolute record was set - 1091 thousand tons per month.

          Doenitz did not have such indicators, especially if we take 43-44 years (alternative 16-17).

          American submarines sink Japanese aircraft carriers.


          And more numerous and even better equipped Japanese submarines play Sudoku. Or whatever is popular with them. But almost everyone is on alert. The Japanese submarine fleet plowed through the entire war, worked very actively, for wear and tear. However, he did not achieve any significant success.

          You must be able to use this stick. The Americans, who took German tactics as a basis, mastered it. And the Japanese are not with theirs.

          one British submarine sinks a cruiser


          Strong statement. There was a desperation operation. 2 groups of the Argentine Navy. Should have come out in different ways. A cruiser with destroyers went to beat the landing craft. Two more URO destroyers and an aircraft carrier (suddenly Argentina had its own aircraft carrier) with the Skyhawks went the other way for a dagger strike at the fleet. However, having received the weather on May 1, the operation was canceled. And the main shock connection started to go away.

          probably because of this failure of missile technology


          In addition, the most powerful missile technology among the opponents of the P-15M aircraft carriers is still the same. In Libya, for example, they were impudent and even fired from the AU frigates.

          the development of aviation has already led to the fact that it is possible to reach targets from ground bases.


          Can. But you can not get it. The reaction time is different. Single blows will give only a media picture. If it is necessary to democratize a country rich in mineral resources, direct support is needed.
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 5 November 2020 15: 01
            -1
            Quote: donavi49
            And if in WWII, they built it faster than drowned it. Then in the PMV in 17, it was possible to heat up and build 1000 thousand tons in a little less than 3 months. That is, in theory, unlimited submarine warfare could take off, because in 1917 an absolute record was set - 1091 thousand tons per month.

            Doenitz did not have such indicators, especially if we take 43-44 years (alternative 16-17).

            at 43-44? Already in 1940, Donets was financed on a leftover basis and did not have at its disposal even a third of the requested forces. the Kriegsmarines and Hitler all could not decide what they needed, whether battleships, submarines, or try aircraft carriers ... in 43-44 the Germans had no time for the fleet.
            Quote: donavi49
            And more numerous and even better equipped Japanese submarines play Sudoku. Or whatever is popular with them. But almost everyone is on alert. The Japanese submarine fleet plowed through the entire war, worked very actively, for wear and tear. However, he did not achieve any significant success.

            You must be able to use this stick. The Americans, who took German tactics as a basis, mastered it. And the Japanese are not with theirs.
            the Japanese had many projects that did not fire. grandiose and ultimately completely useless Yamato and Musashi. submarine aircraft carriers that did nothing but heroically drown themselves, micro-submarines that were found in Pearl Harbor and about which they argued for a long time, whether they were at all.
            it is apparently an Asian tradition to create grandiose and useless request
            Quote: donavi49
            Strong statement. There was a desperation operation. 2 groups of the Argentine Navy. Should have come out in different ways. A cruiser with destroyers went to beat the landing craft. Two more URO destroyers and an aircraft carrier (suddenly Argentina had its own aircraft carrier) with the Skyhawks went the other way for a dagger strike at the fleet. However, having received the weather on May 1, the operation was canceled. And the main shock connection started to go away.
            as far as I remember, of these two groups, one was in the port, the other was already at sea. they tried to leave the port, but when trying to leave the port, the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano (American type Brooklyn) was sunk and on this the idea of ​​withdrawing the fleet from the port was abandoned.
            Quote: donavi49
            In addition, the most powerful missile technology among the opponents of the P-15M aircraft carriers is still the same.
            I do not even know what to answer .. probably like this: "the aircraft carrier has no trenches because the Swordfish range is less than the P-15M range!" laughing
            Quote: donavi49
            In Libya, for example, they were impudent and even fired from the AU frigates.

            in Libya ??? in which the army was purely nominal? very revealing. yes and so yes, and from the battleship Beirut was shelled in Lebanon. but with the DPRK it turned out to be somehow ssykatno to approach yes in Yemen, the Houthis also weaned to approach the shore, but it took a long time for the Saudis to come. Until they leased Swift from the USA, they did not lose it, they didn’t add it ...
            Quote: donavi49
            Can. But you can not get it. The reaction time is different. Single blows will give only a media picture. If it is necessary to democratize a country rich in mineral resources, direct support is needed.

            the last massive use of aircraft carriers is the Vietnam War. and what is the result? the war is lost, and only 17% of sorties accounted for the aircraft carrier formation request and there was everything they could collect. at the same time, I will again note that Vietnam had nothing to respond to this threat.
            The Millennium Challenge headquarters exercises clearly demonstrated the vulnerability of the AUG already at the beginning of this century. in this century, AUG has never been used anywhere against countries with a submarine fleet and missile weapons at least at the end of the last century.
            The aircraft carrier has a great PR effect, but it's a double-edged sword. firstly, this PR effect works only in the USA, but secondly, in the event of damage to an aircraft carrier, not even sinking, but simply damage, this is a PR disaster.
  13. evgen1221
    evgen1221 4 November 2020 11: 57
    +2
    And without articles and clever analysts, it is clear that the more different ships, the greater the influence of the country that has them and all through them. China depends on the resources of Africa, and of course it needs a fleet to guarantee its supply and market. China is not going to threaten the Amers in principle, rather, on the contrary, hence the even greater strengthening of the Chinese fleet, if there were no raids and greed with marasmus from the elves, then the Chinese would not have built a fleet like that. As for us, well, thank you for giving the forest and so on and sit quietly under the broom.
  14. Lavrenty1937
    Lavrenty1937 4 November 2020 12: 29
    +3
    One of the basic principles of the construction of the Fleet is its balance. This means that already in peacetime there should be in a certain amount of AV, NK, submarine, aviation. The construction of some may be primary, others secondary. For example, there is no need to build landing ships for us now, since they will not participate in operations to defeat the enemy's AUG and protect SSBNs. Although, in principle, the fleet needs them. American AUS can strike at the PRC using SLCMs (range 1600 km) and carrier-based aircraft (1100-1300 km with refueling). In order to prevent these strikes, the PRC Navy will have to operate at a range of up to 1500-1000 km from the coast. Will the coastal aviation be able to provide continuous support for submarines, NKs, bombers at such a distance from the coast? Doubtful. And if the forces listed above would support at least 2 AB, then the stability of the anti-aircraft group would increase significantly. Consequently, AB must be used to protect submarines, NKs, aviation, striking the enemy's AUS (AUG) (the only hope for ballistic anti-ship missiles will lead to a loss). Using 2 PRC AWs (equivalent to 1 US AW) against 11 US AWs is futile - 100% loss.
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 5 November 2020 01: 11
      0
      Quote: Lavrenty1937
      American AUS can strike at the PRC using SLCMs (range 1600 km) and carrier-based aircraft (1100-1300 km with refueling). To prevent these blows The PRC Navy will have to operate at a range of up to 1500-1000 km from the coast.

      sorry what? How do you imagine this? The United States means with "SLCM (range 1600 km) and carrier-based aircraft (1100-1300 km with refueling)", and the PRC, as under Liss, will ram the AUG ??? belay
  15. Ersh
    Ersh 4 November 2020 13: 54
    -3
    How interesting the article began - with a comparison of aircraft carriers with battleships! Recently I saw a series of documentaries "Sea Legends". Very impressed! And you know what? The almost complete uselessness of battleships in World War II! They were so expensive, they had such a large number of personnel that they were afraid to take them out to sea, they were protected. And if they dared, then some drowned at the first exit to the sea.
    In modern times, the same can be attributed to aircraft carriers. They are only suitable for scaring the population of underdeveloped countries with non-white populations in peacetime. And during the war they will become huge floating coffins.
    And finally, maybe someone does not know, but Vietnam considers China its main enemy. And not only counts, but prepares for war.
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 5 November 2020 01: 14
      0
      Quote: Ersh
      And finally, maybe someone does not know, but Vietnam considers China its main enemy. And not only counts, but prepares for war.

      well, then, and Vietnam in the Asian region everyone considers the enemy wink hefty lively!
      otherwise I agree with you, but it looks like a meeting of adherents of the unsinkable AUG ... laughing
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 5 November 2020 12: 37
      +1
      Quote: Ersh
      And you know what? The almost complete uselessness of battleships in World War II! They were so expensive, they had such a large number of personnel that they were afraid to take them out to sea, they were protected. And if they dared, then some drowned at the first exit to the sea.

      This suffered the Germans, the USSR and partly the Japanese. Partly because for Japan (and for Italy), in addition to tactical and operational considerations, there were also fuel ones. The combinedfleet somehow figured that just one Yamato exit to shell Guadalcanal could gobble up 5% of IJN's monthly fuel consumption.
      But the Limes and the Yankees did not suffer from a particular fear of losses. British LKs fought in the Mediterranean, crawled in escort, intercepted German "big pots", ran away from Kido Butai. smile American LCs ... the attitude of the Yankees to their LCs is evidenced by the fact that they, already having the sad experience of night battles with the IJN, were not afraid to throw two new post-Washington LCs with only four EM escorts into the next night battle in the Strait.
    3. nickname7
      nickname7 10 November 2020 12: 41
      0
      then some drowned at the first sailing

      It was like that, because one in the field is not a warrior, the number wins.
  16. iskanderzp
    iskanderzp 4 November 2020 13: 56
    +7
    A novel, with all due respect, but the thesis: "... corvettes and missile boats with the support of shore-based aviation and ground anti-ship complexes will be able to destroy anti-ship and cruise missiles, enemy aircraft with the same ease with which larger ships can do it. "To put it mildly, debatable. I don’t remember missile boats with a sufficient air defense system for this. And corvettes also sin with this.
  17. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 4 November 2020 15: 46
    +1
    ... the book "Red Star over the Pacific Ocean".

    Why 'red'? On the flag and jackets of the PLA Navy, it is gold, in my opinion ...
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 4 November 2020 21: 11
      +1
      So it is, the flag of the PLA Navy:

      About the "red star", Americans probably have phantom pains. The Soviet Union spoiled a lot of their blood at one time.
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 4 November 2020 21: 23
        0
        ... About the "red star", Americans probably have phantom pains. The Soviet Union spoiled a lot of their blood at one time.

        Duck here g) The Chinese had a red star on the jack sometime in the 50s, but then their fleet was a fun vinaigrette of Soviet, American, Japanese and Chinese ships, and they had nothing to do with the Pacific Ocean. They were engaged in cleaning their islands from all Taiwanese guerrilla and drug trafficking.
        This is fucking how to write 'Vietnamese balm' red star '. Hmm, by the way, it is interesting - do Americans use this irreplaceable tool?
  18. Jünger
    Jünger 4 November 2020 16: 10
    0
    In case of war, China does not need aircraft carriers, but to prepare to receive occupation troops, which China has consistently done throughout its many thousand-year history.
  19. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 4 November 2020 20: 19
    -4
    the respected Roman Skomorokhov remarked very correctly, aircraft carriers are weapons of attack, and they require the support of many surface ships, transports ... so Russian aircraft carriers are not needed, you need to focus on the development of coastal aviation, retaliation submarines, minesweepers and a small number of PLO corvettes-frigates
  20. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 4 November 2020 21: 12
    +2
    Nice article, thanks!

    The Chinese are not building aircraft carriers to frighten America. So far, only the most difficult, vigorous arguments work there. But a bunch of little things like some kind of "southern burundy" :)) quite need to be looked after and to reason. The Chinese invest huge amounts of money in third world countries, and are in no hurry to write off them at the very first change of government.

    AUG plus a good assault force can save billions of dollars in investment. And they will save even more by the very fact of their availability and the possibility of application in any part of the world.

    Well, India's "sworn friend" is also not out of sight, not the fact that the Indians will simply fight the Chinese AUG in the Indian Ocean.
  21. Lexus
    Lexus 4 November 2020 22: 55
    +5
    "Rich as Croesus". (FROM)
    The inglorious finale of the Lydian kingdom today threatens not China, but its "northern neighbor".
    "Bubble" and "swagger" against the enemy can not resist. A powerful fleet, with aircraft carriers, quite.
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 5 November 2020 01: 18
      -2
      Quote: lexus
      A powerful fleet, with aircraft carriers, quite.

      quite what? can stand outside the range of submarines and anti-ship missiles that are successfully based on the frigate?
  22. The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 4 November 2020 23: 23
    0
    The practice of recent years has shown that ships of a rather small tonnage, such as diesel submarines or corvettes, can deliver strikes no less tangible than ships of large classes.


    Practice where? What conflicts?
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 5 November 2020 01: 21
      -2
      Quote: Eye of the Crying
      Practice where? What conflicts?

      for example, tomahawk strikes on Syria. two pieces.
      The AUG has done nothing at all in recent years, except that the DPRK was made laugh. lol
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 5 November 2020 10: 06
        0
        Quote: SanichSan
        tomahawk strikes on Syria. two pieces.


        From the Caspian Sea? Oh yeah.

        Quote: SanichSan
        AUG hasn't done anything at all in recent years


        If you choose the appropriate value for "recent years". So planes from aircraft carriers also bombed ISIS and K.
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 5 November 2020 15: 38
          -3
          Quote: Eye of the Crying
          From the Caspian Sea? Oh yeah.

          tomahawks ??? belay you burn! wassat I'm actually talking about the United States who fired at Syria. not very successful but better than aircraft carriers.
          Quote: Eye of the Crying
          If you choose the appropriate value for "recent years".

          20. in this century.
          Quote: Eye of the Crying
          So planes from aircraft carriers also bombed ISIS and K.

          are these effective actions as a result of which ISIS captured 70% of Syria? Well, what can I say, success! wassat
          What other arguments do you have that confirms the thesis that AUG is applicable only against the Papuans who do not have serious missile weapons and at least some kind of fleet? bully
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 5 November 2020 16: 29
            +1
            Quote: SanichSan
            I'm actually talking about the United States who fired at Syria. not very successful but better than aircraft carriers.


            I'm talking about strikes from the Caspian RTOs. The USA, as far as I know, struck from the Berks. Certainly not from corvettes.

            Quote: SanichSan
            in this century.


            Read about the use of aircraft carriers in the second Iraqi war.

            Quote: SanichSan
            what other arguments do you have to support the thesis that AUG is applicable only against the Papuans


            If you look up the thread, you can see what I was asking about ... in short, see above.
            1. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 5 November 2020 17: 15
              -2
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              I'm talking about strikes from the Caspian RTOs. The USA, as far as I know, struck from the Berks. Certainly not from corvettes.

              and? that is, if a CD starts from a destroyer, then it is special and has greater efficiency than the one that starts from a corvette?
              And by the way, what does the shooting from the Caspian Sea not suit you? all targets destroyed, unlike American shows wink
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              Read about the use of aircraft carriers in the second Iraqi war.

              looked .. their role was so "outstanding" that almost nothing has been written about it request it is written that they were there. request
              the main load, as always, was on ground-based aviation. request AUG did not play a significant role. and again against the enemy who had nothing to answer.
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              If you look up the thread, you can see what I was asking about ... in short, see above.

              asked? where is the question here:
              Quote: Eye of the Crying
              So planes from aircraft carriers also bombed ISIS and K.

              you made an argument in favor of the AUG being used against partisans and Papuans request
              1. The eye of the crying
                The eye of the crying 5 November 2020 17: 36
                0
                Quote: SanichSan
                asked? where is the question here:


                Yes, I did. But you have not yet found the post that asked the question.
                1. Sanichsan
                  Sanichsan 5 November 2020 17: 44
                  0
                  Quote: Eye of the Crying
                  Yes, I did. But you have not yet found the post that asked the question.

                  found. here is the only question you asked:
                  Quote: Eye of the Crying
                  Practice where? What conflicts?

                  you were answered, from which you are fidgeting in a frying pan, then Burks do not suit you, then calibers do not fly so well laughing
                  1. The eye of the crying
                    The eye of the crying 5 November 2020 17: 55
                    -1
                    Quote: SanichSan
                    found.


                    Bravo.

                    Quote: SanichSan
                    you answered it


                    And this answer - "strike with tomahawks on Syria"? If you insist that this is not a reservation, I will simply say that no corvettes and no diesel submarines have struck Tomahawks against Syria.

                    Quote: SanichSan
                    then Burks don't suit you, then calibers don't fly like that


                    What are you carrying, take it back. Burks do not suit me, because they are not door vents and not diesels. The calibers are just right for me, but not for you.
  23. Selevc
    Selevc 5 November 2020 15: 29
    0
    Although Spain and Italy are very difficult to call first-class maritime powers,
    These countries - they are now not maritime powers ... But ambitions - ambitions that remain !!! Both in Spain and in Italy there is a huge layer of various elites who are flattered by the very fact of having an aircraft carrier !!! Since Spain was once the ruler of the seas, then at least something should remind of this? - even a parade squadron !!!

    And besides, I ask you not to forget that at all times there have been especially warm places in the fleet - where careers are quickly made, where you can serve with a minimum of risk to yourself, where you can constantly participate in beautiful parades, where you are constantly in sight the highest ranks of the state !!!

    Aircraft carriers are now like armor at the beginning of the era of firearms - everyone wore them but over the years they became more and more decorative protection, simply showing the level of prestige of the person who wore them. This order of things can last as long as you like - usually until the day of the battle X in which the enemy smashes to smithereens a herd of overdressed peacocks from the past !!! And then the whole world begins feverishly to write off the old and also quickly look for the new ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 5 November 2020 17: 59
      0
      Quote: Selevc
      And besides, I ask you not to forget that at all times there have been especially warm places in the fleet - where careers are quickly made, where you can serve with a minimum of risk to yourself, where you can constantly participate in beautiful parades, where you are constantly in sight of the highest officials of the state !!!

      Uh-huh ... a ship full of ammunition and aviation fuel from which aviation regularly flies is, of course, a minimum of risk. smile
      One wrong move of one of the hundreds of deck or hangar crew members - and you are already in command of a floating bonfire. And that's if you don't remember the regular balancing act with takeoff and landing.
      No, it’s easier on EM URO - at least there you don’t need to take the missiles back into the mines after each volley. smile
      1. Selevc
        Selevc 5 November 2020 18: 02
        0
        and you already command the floating bonfire.
        just a floating bonfire - will you name me at least 1 aircraft carrier that burned down from misuse of aviation ??? )))
        I think that the planes in the Russian ground air force fall more often than the planes of the naval aviation !!!
        And warehouses with ammunition tend to explode - so now recognize the position of the head of the warehouse as the most dangerous in the army ???
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 5 November 2020 18: 32
          +2
          Quote: Selevc
          just a floating bonfire - will you name me at least 1 aircraft carrier that burned down from misuse of aviation ???

          At least two - Forrestal and Enterprise.

          In order to start a fire on the Forrestal, it took only two minor violations of the instructions by the gunsmiths: connecting cables to the NAR launcher immediately upon suspension (and cho, so really faster) and lack of control over ammunition safety checks. The result - 134 dead, 161 wounded, 21 planes without return.
        2. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 5 November 2020 20: 06
          0
          Quote: Selevc
          I think that the planes in the Russian ground air force fall more often than the planes of the naval aviation !!!

          We have MA and fly much less often wink
  24. Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 6 November 2020 12: 08
    +1
    Theodore Roosevelt was a serious guy. One of the best presidents in US history.
  25. megavolt823
    megavolt823 10 November 2020 00: 17
    0
    China for a long history has not fought major wars where China was an oppressor. Or I don’t know. A large ship is not only the ability to accommodate different weapons and convenience of service. But above all, it is an argument, a reason for pride and politics in metal. But history teaches differently.
  26. the same doctor
    the same doctor 20 November 2020 19: 46
    0
    The world has started another redistribution. we, the Russian people, have no need to meddle there. we are dying out, we are so few and the present territories are enough for us. We should close ourselves as much as possible and not meddle, throw out migrants and start developing our economy based on the latest technology. If we forget about the protection of Western copyrights, then we will be able to repeat all their technologies in 10 years. What we cannot - we will compensate for the double number of working hands.
    .
    What can stop us? the supranational elite of the country, who, like Trotsky, do not care about white slaves. They are so eager to go to the West that, left without the umbrella of the Motherland, they become victims of anti-corruption processes. Well, doom your children and grandchildren to work as taxi drivers. If they were ever left alive.
    .
    There were many supranational elites in our country. Varangians ... Catherine the Great ... Mongolo-Tatars ... The current one is different in that their tribesmen have taken over the whole world. But why are our people confident that they will share with them after the death of Russia?