Roughead says Chinese carrier would be concern

[pmaidhof]

Roughead says Chinese carrier would be concern

 

By Ken The - The Associated Press

Posted : Tuesday Apr 21, 2009 12:56:10 EDT

 

QINGDAO, China — A future Chinese aircraft carrier may worry neighboring navies because Beijing has not specified what role the warship would play in the region, the U.S. chief of Naval Operations said Tuesday.

 

China, meanwhile, said a more powerful navy would not pose a threat as it mulls adding its first aircraft carrier to an increasingly sophisticated fleet.

 

The comments by Adm. Gary Roughead came amid growing signs that China plans to build a carrier as the country puts on a major display of naval weaponry this week in the northern port of Qingdao. The show was part of celebrations for the Chinese navy’s 60th anniversary.

 

Long a goal of Chinese military planners, a carrier would bring much desired prestige to China’s navy and could embolden it in asserting Chinese territorial claims, particularly in the South China Sea, analysts say. A carrier would also better allow Beijing to defend sea lanes crucial for the safe passage of trade and natural resources.

 

“If it is not clear what the intent is of the use of an aircraft carrier, I would say that it may cause concern with some of the regional navies and nations,” Roughead told reporters in Qingdao, where he held talks with his Chinese counterpart, Adm. Wu Shengli.

 

Wu did not comment on a possible Chinese carrier.

 

In earlier comments to The Associated Press, defense analyst John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org said an aircraft carrier could bring China into conflict at sea with other regional military powers, including the U.S., Japan, South Korea and India.

 

“The main barrier [to operating a carrier] is deciding what role such ships would play in China’s maritime strategy,” Pike said.

 

Vice Adm. Ding Yiping, the Chinese navy’s deputy commander, reiterated China’s contention that the People’s Liberation Army does not pose a threat to other nations.

 

“The PLA Navy will continue to make contributions to maintain world, regional and maritime peace,” Ding was quoted as saying by the official Xinhua News Agency.

 

A total of 21 foreign ships are attending the Qingdao naval display, the first of its kind for China.

 

Thursday’s international fleet review is to feature vessels from China and 14 foreign nations, including — for the first time — Chinese nuclear submarines, according to Ding. The types of vessels were not specified.

 

The People’s Liberation Army, controlled by the Communist Party, has traditionally kept its best weaponry tightly under wraps, but recent years have seen a growing openness as it seeks to take its place among the ranks of modern, professional militaries.

 

China’s 225,000-member navy operates more submarines than any other Asian nation, with up to 10 nuclear-powered vessels and as many as 60 diesel-electric subs.

 

The country’s nuclear-powered Jin- and Shang-class submarines are considered just a notch below cutting-edge U.S. and Russian craft. Its diesel-electric Yuan class also boasts an indigenously developed air-independent propulsion system that allows it to remain submerged for weeks.

 

In comments to foreign commanders gathered Tuesday, Wu said world navies need to work together to confront non-conventional security threats — a reference to the multinational anti-piracy mission off the Somali coast.

 

He encouraged all navies to make maritime peace their “unshakable mission.”

 

China’s deployed its anti-piracy patrol in December to Somalia in a rare joint operation with navies from other countries. It was the first time the communist state dispatched ships abroad on a combat mission.

 

Wu reiterated China’s insistence that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea guide the resolution of all maritime disputes. China says the convention gives it the right to restrict the collection of military intelligence within its 200-mile exclusive economic zones, and has dispatched boats to harass U.S. Naval vessels within that area.

 

“We must abide by the principles and the regulations of the United Nations Charter when handling maritime affairs and carrying out military operations on the oceans,” Wu said.

 

The U.S., however, insists on the right of free passage in international waters, and says the convention specifically gives warships and naval auxiliary vessels immunity from being stopped, searched or boarded, while allowing military operations within the economic zones.

 

Find NavyTiems article here.

[TonyE]

Sure a Chinese carrier would be a concern but I don't think China should be condemned for building carriers. Some of that again optional but handy 'transparency' in the reasoning behind a carrier would be nice but again it is optional. Besides, a Chinese carrier will be vulnerable to subs just like US carriers are...

[kcdusk]

i can see a sub being undetected and launching an attack on a carrier (assuming it can breach its barrier defences). But does a sub have enough firepower to do significant damage to an ACC?

[CV32]

i can see a sub being undetected and launching an attack on a carrier (assuming it can breach its barrier defences). But does a sub have enough firepower to do significant damage to an ACC?

 

[ACC? I presume you're referring to the carrier?]

 

Absolutely, a submarine is a serious threat to an aircraft carrier.

 

Even in H4/HCE terms, the older Chinese heavyweight torpedoes (Yu-4, circa 1984) carry about 150 DP apiece. The newer Yu-6 would be similar. A couple of those and you're putting serious hurt on a carrier. That's nearly a quarter of a nuclear supercarrier's total DP. Consider something like the old Soviet Type 65 monster torpedo, and its worse still. Torpedoes will be striking along the hull, under the keel, or in the propellers.

 

In the anti-ship missile field, something like the YJ-82 is going to be packing something like 36 DP but there would usually be more of them. Those are going to be hitting along your carrier's hull, flight deck or island superstructure. (Again, something like the Soviet Oscar submarine and its SS-N-19 Shipwreck is a whole other ballgame).

 

In real life terms, anything that prevents an aircraft carrier from carrying out normal, high tempo flight operations is a serious threat to the asset. We're talking explosions, fires and fragmentation damage on flight decks and in hangars, both of which are often packed with munitions, fuel, and personnel. Underwater, a hit in the screws that keeps the carrier from maintaining wind speed over the deck is going to significantly hamper flight ops.

 

There is a reason why aircraft carrier designs invest heavily in torpedo crush spaces, torpedo decoys, CIWS, etc, etc.

[eclipse_trb]

Besides just because the damage does not sink it doesn't mean its not a combat kill knocking it out of the fight along with some if not all of its escorts who are then needed to protect the wounded cv back home.

[kcdusk]

Hmmm. I'm going to hit the books and see how much damage torpedoes could do. I only have H4.1 annexs so i will be looking at NATA v RUSSIA data but it should still give me an idea.

 

And it sounds like "critial hit" rolls will also hurt, even if ships are not sunk due to loss of damage points.

[TonyE]

Hmmm. I'm going to hit the books and see how much damage torpedoes could do. I only have H4.1 annexs so i will be looking at NATA v RUSSIA data but it should still give me an idea.

 

And it sounds like "critial hit" rolls will also hurt, even if ships are not sunk due to loss of damage points.

 

I don't know how crits contribute to DP damage in the paper rules but they sure add up fast in HC, often times the crits from a torpedo hit will do more DP damage than the base warhead itself.

[kcdusk]

I dont have chinese sub data, so i looked up NATO v Russian.

 

LA Class subs use Mk 67 533mm TT - but i cannot find the torpedo stats in the data annex??? Anyway, it looks like other US torpedoes do about 150 dam points to ships. The Kiev aircraft carrier has 644 points of damage.

 

If a torp hit the Kiev (doing 150 pts of damage) her speed would be reduced from 32kts to 24kts (possibly affecting aircraft take off ability). CH wise the calc is based on 0.3 damage ratio so on a D6 roll an average roll of 3 or 4 would see 1 or 2 CH's. Each CH has a 40% chance of flooding a ship. So a single torpedo would cause some concern to an aircraft carrier.

 

A second hit to the Kiev would see her speed drop to 16kts and probably another 3 or 4 rolls on the CH table (where almost anything can happen, most likely flooding or further speed reduction). So 2 hits would give the Kiev signifigant problems.

 

If a sub did get in position to fire against an aircraft carrier, would it fire 1, 2 or more (8!) torpedoes? Reading data annexs again it looks like most subs can only fire 2 torpedoes at once so i guess a sub couldnt fire more than 2 before fleeing or needing to take evasive action?

[pmaidhof]

If a sub did get in position to fire against an aircraft carrier, would it fire 1, 2 or more (8!) torpedoes? Reading data annexs again it looks like most subs can only fire 2 torpedoes at once so i guess a sub couldnt fire more than 2 before fleeing or needing to take evasive action?

 

While as far away as empirical data can be, if a sub commander was undetected and with a big juicy aircraft carrier directly in his sights it would take some "fire discipline" not go for the kill and then run silent and deep getting away.

[kcdusk]

so are you firing 2 torpedoes? or more?

[VictorInThePacific]

if a sub commander was undetected .

 

How would he ever be certain of this? There could be an ASW plane maneuvering above him, trying to get to point blank range (= instantaneous auto-kill).

[VictorInThePacific]

so are you firing 2 torpedoes? or more?

 

Personally, in this situation, I would shoot every available torpedo AND the kitchen sink. None of this "one torpedo per target stuff".

[pmaidhof]

if a sub commander was undetected .

 

How would he ever be certain of this? There could be an ASW plane maneuvering above him, trying to get to point blank range (= instantaneous auto-kill).

 

The is no way with complete certainty to know if he is undetected, however in my opinion if the skipper is confident of his boats capabilities and his crews proficiency, and after going into harms way, now has a big fat juicy carrier in his crosshairs, he'd likely throw everying including the lawn furniture to sink or mission kill a carrier.

[CV32]

How would he ever be certain of this? There could be an ASW plane maneuvering above him, trying to get to point blank range (= instantaneous auto-kill).

 

He could never be absolutely sure, but often there are indicators of an impending attack. Active sonobuoys, active dipping sonar, even the sound of the aircraft's engines as it roars overhead or the thrum of a hovering helo. Then, splashes!