Submarine first, Carrier second

Pointblank said:

The thing is with a sub carrier, it is a HVU, or a High Value Unit. If the presence of one is suspected, you can expect that a lot of enemy assets will be deployed to attack it.

A carrier is meant to be a beacon of permanent power projection; it is meant to bust its way into an area, and sustain a presence there. A submarine aircraft carrier cannot do either; it cannot break its way into an area and sustain a presence. Such a design, may I state this clearly, IS NOT PRACTICAL, even with the advances of technology seen today.

Click to expand...

Well, at least for me it seems that a carrier exists to provide means to find and blow up things in the air, land and sea. In the distant future (where sub carriers clearly belong) the finding part might be as well provided by long range land based assets and space based assets. The blowing things up on land part is even today produced more cost-effectively by long range bombers and cruise missiles. The carrier air group cannot also strike much inland. With advent of better communications and precision guidance traditional CAS missions can be performed by naval gunfire closer to the shoreline and by bombers further inland.

At sea it is debatable if long range bombers equipped with suitable missiles might be just as able to perform ASUW strike mission as well if not even better than carrier air group. For ASW a carrier does not offer any capabilities which land based long range aircraft and normal DDG/FFG/CG helos cannotoffer.

For power projection a sub carrier might be as effective as a surface carrier. UK reportedly prevented Argentine invasion of Falklands during 1970's just by announcing their subs were in the area.

Finally, carriers are hideously expensive. To deliver any payload a carrier battle group needs some 9000 men to be placed under possible enemy attack. For me at least it seems that most of the carrier battle group is tied up to defend itself. To sustain one carrier battle group on position you need two other carrier groups as well, with a total of some 27000 men. To fly bombers halfway round the world with tanker support is surely expensive, but I would still guess it does not tie up as many men.

For me at least it seems that the only thing a traditional carrier is ultimately needed is establishment of air superiority in areas which are out of reach for land based fighters and friendly SAM cover. (Such as defence of Taiwan mission).

A sub carrier might be useful to launch air combat UCAV's fairly close to enemy territory. Furthermore, a sub carrier might be of some modular design in which aircraft hangars etc. assorted equipment might be also used for cruise missile cells if needed. As with UCAV's one does not need to care as much about safety issues these might be launched underwater in similar way to ballistic missiles. The problems start when UCAV's would land and replenish. For this the UCAV's might use satellite comms to call up an ELF transmitter to alert the sub. Even if the retrieval procedure would be very quick, the sub carrier would need a rudimentary air defense capabilities.

Obviously the sub might not hold neither as much planes, fuel and munitions as a traditional carrier in order to keep the sub carrier in size limits which would allow it to operate unescorted, like Soviet Project 941 class did. This might be countered by reducing the mission load (as proposed above) to air superiority, and by building more sub carriers as the crew (and thus money) savings would be significant.

Yes, this is quite futuristic but what does one do when sitting on a boring job shift...In reality, USN will be stuck with Nimitzes for next 50 years. China will probably build a boring traditional carrier if it does build one at all. EU will discuss the matter.

Jon K said:

Yes, this is quite futuristic but what does one do when sitting on a boring job shift...In reality, USN will be stuck with Nimitzes for next 50 years. China will probably build a boring traditional carrier if it does build one at all. EU will discuss the matter.

Click to expand...

That's just because the traditional aircraft carrier makes a huge amount of sense. Naval warfare is about pushing around ordinance plus the means to deliver them. The turbofan strike fighter will always beat missiles for range and endurance, just because it's so much bigger. The aircraft carrier is the world's biggest machine to carry this combination of ordinance, fuel, and delivery platforms. They are the king of this battlefield.

Only way I see them going away is if they become vulnerable to orbital/ballistic missile strikes. I can imagine if you use a big enough orbital penetrator, nothing can deflect it from where it wants to go...

goldenpanda said:

That's just because the traditional aircraft carrier makes a huge amount of sense. Naval warfare is about pushing around ordinance plus the means to deliver them. The turbofan strike fighter will always beat missiles for range and endurance, just because it's so much bigger. The aircraft carrier is the world's biggest machine to carry this combination of ordinance, fuel, and delivery platforms. They are the king of this battlefield.

Only way I see them going away is if they become vulnerable to orbital/ballistic missile strikes. I can imagine if you use a big enough orbital penetrator, nothing can deflect it from where it wants to go...

Click to expand...

I think this sums up the situation pretty well Panda.

A ballistic missile may be able to beat the strike fighter for range but it is no where near as flexible as a continually moving carrier strike group. Also, IMO, a missile sitting in a silo where it can't be seen is no where near as good a deterrent as a carrier which has a very visible presence. A carrier sub would also lack the visible deterrence of a traditional carrier.

When PLAN eventually commissions new carriers and develops the skills to operate them effectively I think there will potentially be a huge change in the balance of naval power.

Cheers

China begins expanding its supertanker fleet
By David Lague
Published: May 16, 2007
...

China imported 162.87 million tons of oil last year, accounting for about 47 percent of Chinese consumption, according to official figures. This proportion is expected to increase to 50 percent by 2010, when imports were expected to reach 200 million tons, according to a forecast in April from the Chinese oil giant, China National Petroleum Corp.
...

Chinese military thinkers have also raised the possibility that the United States might attempt to block oil shipments to China if conflict arose over Taiwan. The United States has a longstanding pledge to support Taiwan in the event of an unprovoked attack from the mainland.

More than 60 percent of the oil imported by China is shipped from the Middle East and Africa along extended sea lanes that pass through a number of vulnerable choke points, including the narrow Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia.
...

Click to expand...

Diego Garcia is like a spin in her net - the US could block the sea lines by plane and ships - and this base can't be knocked out only by subs, the PLAN need carriers to close the airport there ...

Tasman said:

Also, IMO, a missile sitting in a silo where it can't be seen is no where near as good a deterrent as a carrier which has a very visible presence. A carrier sub would also lack the visible deterrence of a traditional carrier.

Click to expand...

Deterrence changes when technology changes. 18th century statesman would not consider carriers to be good deterrent as they can't be seen from the shore. During the cold war the superpowers spent their excess amounts of testosterone with raising alert postures and ordering various public exercises. In situation in which they would be no carriers these measures would do, IMHO.

But back to the issue, yes, whether China will construct carriers or not the Chinese naval developments will bring the naval enthusiasts like me back to the line. The period after the cold war has been such a bore.

There are numerous reports saying China has the intention to built a carrier, and I think they should built one. However, I still believe high-survivability submarines are the way to go in the future. With accurate missiles these days, carriers are sitting ducks. Besides, submarines offer a low profile, so when people mention the Chinese navy and their submarines, most people would not feel that as a threat than as if carriers are mentioned. PLAN should pursue a lower profile in terms of weaponry.

I don't think it's likely submarines will launch manned aircrafts, but I do like the idea of launching scout/attack UAVs and USVs (umanned submarine vehicles).

Ryz05 said:

There are numerous reports saying China has the intention to built a carrier, and I think they should built one. However, I still believe high-survivability submarines are the way to go in the future. With accurate missiles these days, carriers are sitting ducks. Besides, submarines offer a low profile, so when people mention the Chinese navy and their submarines, most people would not feel that as a threat than as if carriers are mentioned. PLAN should pursue a lower profile in terms of weaponry.

I don't think it's likely submarines will launch manned aircrafts, but I do like the idea of launching scout/attack UAVs and USVs (umanned submarine vehicles).

Click to expand...

Submarines are meant for hit and run attacks; there is a trade off between survivability, stealth, speed, and armament. To increase survivability means to increase the size of the submarine which creates a bigger target to find and also, you cut down on how fast the submarine can travel without being detected. Smaller submarines are harder to detect, but carry a smaller weapons load and are range-restricted.

The aircraft carrier is the quintessential platform for sustaining a presence in a region. If you want to sustain a military presence 24/7 for months or weeks at a time attacking targets, a carrier is the only way to go.

Ryz05 said:

Besides, submarines offer a low profile, so when people mention the Chinese navy and their submarines, most people would not feel that as a threat than as if carriers are mentioned.

Click to expand...

IMO, that's exactly why PLAN needs CVs now. Coz, like you said subs are low profile but powerful at the same time. So its power is REAL power (killing). However, nowadays CV's power is more of a deterrent power (high profile). It's more like the new nuclear deterrent. In the cold war, countries use nuclear as their deterrent to avoid real war (killing). Now CV's taken the role of nuclear in some sense. Coz small and medium countries know what ever they do you big countries will never use nuclear. Thus, by having CVs China may avoid unnecessary conflicts. Until a new deterrent is invented, CVs are more important for a large country like China than ever.

subs and cvs will do different jobs
to neutralize a land based air field - like Diego Garcia - you need carriers to attack the airfield 24hrs/per day
a sub would be attacked by the enemy long time before it arrives at the playground

Pointblank said:

Submarines are meant for hit and run attacks; there is a trade off between survivability, stealth, speed, and armament. To increase survivability means to increase the size of the submarine which creates a bigger target to find and also, you cut down on how fast the submarine can travel without being detected. Smaller submarines are harder to detect, but carry a smaller weapons load and are range-restricted.

The aircraft carrier is the quintessential platform for sustaining a presence in a region. If you want to sustain a military presence 24/7 for months or weeks at a time attacking targets, a carrier is the only way to go.

Click to expand...

Aircraft carriers are sustaining platforms, and China is more likely than not to built them. However, submarines are the kings of the ocean. The truth is carriers are too vulnerable to the high tech missiles of today.

kickars said:

IMO, that's exactly why PLAN needs CVs now. Coz, like you said subs are low profile but powerful at the same time. So its power is REAL power (killing). However, nowadays CV's power is more of a deterrent power (high profile). It's more like the new nuclear deterrent. In the cold war, countries use nuclear as their deterrent to avoid real war (killing). Now CV's taken the role of nuclear in some sense. Coz small and medium countries know what ever they do you big countries will never use nuclear. Thus, by having CVs China may avoid unnecessary conflicts. Until a new deterrent is invented, CVs are more important for a large country like China than ever.

Click to expand...

PLAN will have CVs, but submarines are the future, and I think China will focus more on its submarine program. The best deterrance is not CVs, but missiles.