00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread

[ZachL111]

Manning and maintenance is the least of the issues. Naval aviator training and Carrier Group tactics is what really matters. Training to fight in the darkness of the night, in thick fog, in chilly winter with ice particles on deck, in heavy rain, in rough seas... naval aviation skills take time to master. Same goes for Carrier Group tactics. Cruising under strict emissions control, using obscurants to play hide-and-seek with enemy satellites, breaking formation when required, evaluating the constantly changing threat axis, surveying the battlefield around in all three domains (air, surface and sub-surface) at the same time... these are not easy skills to master and something you learn in say a decade.

And then there's the training difference between CV and CVN. CVN is an entirely different beast to a CV and opens up so many tactical possibilities that arrive with unique training requirements of their own.

Not really. Manning a carrier and making sure the carrier is in the best condition, those are two of the most important issues you have. As I said, they have largely started their naval aviation training, obviously they are in a much better position compared to 20 years ago, let's say, when they didn't have any carriers. From what I have observed, via video, reports and in Chinese language forums, is their carrier group tactics are evolving quickly, quite better than most other militaries and navies with carriers. It's to be expected, China usually rapidly develops and they have been doing it increasingly more consistent and well. It would likely take China less than a decade.

Reactor safety, reactor ops, flight deck ops, damage control, security drills, etc etc, those are all major differences in a CVN versus a CV, true. Though I listed more operational training, tactical possibilities are very different as well.

 

[Phead128]

As I said, they have largely started their naval aviation training, obviously they are in a much better position compared to 20 years ago, let's say, when they didn't have any carriers.

Chinese navy began aviation training over 20 years ago circa 2003 when it trained with Brazilian navy onboard the Brazilian aircraft carrier. China didn't begin with zero experience by the time Varyag was fitted out, it has many years experience training with Brazilian aircraft craft carrier so it wasn't starting from zero.

 

[ZachL111]

Chinese navy began aviation training over 20 years ago circa 2003 when it trained with Brazilian navy onboard the Brazilian aircraft carrier. China didn't begin with zero experience by the time Varyag was fitted out, it has many years experience training with Brazilian aircraft craft carrier so it wasn't starting from zero.

True, which is why I didn’t say that they had no experience, I said compared to 20 years ago, 2003, when they started carriers based training formally. They’ve used other platforms as well to train naval aviation other than carriers too I believe.

 

[charles18]

Lack of trained crew to man new ships is a hype that has been regularly posted year after years. ...

I agree I have heard this argument several times and I have never gave it credibility.

My rebuttal is simple.
Building a ship is more difficult then operating one.
If the Chinese are "smart enough" to build ships, then obviously they are "smart enough" to operate these ships.

 

[Intrepid]

I agree I have heard this argument several times and I have never gave it credibility.

but you should, because history has taught us that

 

[BoraTas]

So long as your enemy has aircrafts and also possesses warships that can deploy aircrafts (fleet, light, escort & helicopter carriers) and you have your ocean-spanning maritime commerce, you are DEFINITELY going to NEED Aircraft Carriers.

Striking targets ashore is among the tertiary missions of Carriers. USN air-bombing defenceless middle-east countries has really warped people's understanding of the roles of a Carrier.

No. USN carriers have been very focused on ground attack since WW2. They also had ASW carriers, which were repurposed WW2 carriers. When Essexes finally got retired ASW mission also became a mission of attack carriers. Only Soviet naval growth after 1970 triggered some focus on maritime strike. US Naval Aviation didn't have an anti-ship missile until 1977. After 1991 they became all out bomb droppers.

CSG vs CSG is something USN never faced or prepared for since 1944.

 

[kwaigonegin]

No. USN carriers have been very focused on ground attack since WW2. They also had ASW carriers, which were repurposed WW2 carriers. When Essexes finally got retired ASW mission also became a mission of attack carriers. Only Soviet naval growth after 1970 triggered some focus on maritime strike. US Naval Aviation didn't have an anti-ship missile until 1977. After 1991 they became all out bomb droppers.

CSG vs CSG is something USN never faced or prepared for since 1944.

Due to the speed and range of modern day missiles and fast jets, I'm not even sure if CSG vs CSG will even at all be likely.
The advent of LRAshM pretty much nullifies CSG vs CSG ala BofMidway type aerial battles.
At best, the closest 'battle' I can forsee would be the planes releasing their missiles from hundreds of miles away and then hightailed it back to their respective carriers.

 

[JonnyJalapeno]

Why use plane to launch missiles in anti-ship operations, when you can make more potent missiles and ditch the plane? Most prudent would be to use several awacs alike drones to enhance the carrier radar range, and then coordinate other ships to use their extended range missiles to attack enemy fleet. So carriers carrying bomb jets make not much sense in fleet vs fleet operations, they could be useful if ground support role is needed as missiles can't provide the same effect and are more expensive than guided bombs.
The only advantage is that the missile from plane is launched near the enemy ships so less time for reaction, but then a more potent ship launched missile with hypersonic sea skimming ability is only seen in radars close to enemy fleet and can cover that distance in quick time.

 

[lcloo]

Why use plane to launch missiles in anti-ship operations, when you can make more potent missiles and ditch the plane? Most prudent would be to use several awacs alike drones to enhance the carrier radar range, and then coordinate other ships to use their extended range missiles to attack enemy fleet. So carriers carrying bomb jets make not much sense in fleet vs fleet operations, they could be useful if ground support role is needed as missiles can't provide the same effect and are more expensive than guided bombs.
The only advantage is that the missile from plane is launched near the enemy ships so less time for reaction, but then a more potent ship launched missile with hypersonic sea skimming ability is only seen in radars close to enemy fleet and can cover that distance in quick time.

Ships launched missiles can be priotized over air launched missiles if the ships are in position to engage the enemy. However if you don't have any ships with long range missiles in engagement area, then the option would be sending out strike jets.

The number of ships with long range missiles is limited in number, thus you can't deploy every ships out to cover all areas. Only super powers like US and China can afford to buy and operate capital ships with long range missiles in numbers of more than 50 ships. Everyone else will need cheaper platforms like marine strike jets.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The advent of LRAshM pretty much nullifies CSG vs CSG ala BofMidway type aerial battles.

The opposite.
The deadlier the weapons, the more important is tactical strike/reconnaissance, the more important are carriers of intermediate reconnaissance/strike platforms.

Even(and especially) nuclear naval conflict is aviation-centric...it's just that in a world of complete US carrier dominance, there is indeed no Midway.
At best it's scaled-up Malta runs. And until and unless the world will see a ~9ish carrier fleet from China - it'll remain this way. Right now we are at just 2.