How fast can china catch up on naval aviation given they are copying exactly the U.S carrier operations?
>>30279335
Decades
>>30279335
>How fast can china catch up on naval aviation given they are copying exactly the U.S carrier operations?
US carrier operations have evolved organically over decades of trial and error, and under the evolutionary pressure of constant warfare.
Copying the outward signs of US carrier operations is totally different from understanding through actual combat experience the reasons for those things.
The only way that China can catch up on naval aviation is by doing the work. Give them twenty years of combat operations, and they'll start to catch up.
Anything else is just play-acting. Might as well ask how well the cast and crew of Black Hawk Down would perform in an actual combat mission.
>>30279335
>they are copying exactly the
>>30279335
It's literally impossible for any nation to catch up to the US provided current levels of funding and support.
>>30279335
Both countries are not in a war that gives them experience. Probably in the next decade, China can start to be on par with America. And China will be projected to surpass America after 2030.
>>30279335
Chinese """"copying""""
There imitative rather than innovative nature will always be a limitation.
>>30280216
>Give them twenty years of combat operations, and they'll start to catch up.
this is incidentally the summation of china's entire military. they do a lot of posturing, but they field entirely green units with literally zero operational experience at any level up to top brass. they haven't fought a war since fucking '79
They could catch up within 10 years easily if they were competent & capable & not super corrupt
Nothing the US does is magic, and you'd be an idiot to think the decades of experience actually means anything.
>>30281770
>china
>not super corrupt
gg
>>30280720
Would be foolish to say that as a HUGE % of the American military budget is wasted on things like foreign bases, paying inflated salaries+benefits to useless shits, pensions, inflated maintenance costs of old equipment and maintaining global commitments.
R&D and procurement of new shit is actually pretty small part of the budget.
Plus China is a communist country, so they can just compel stuff to happen.
They'll be at parity spending with the US by 2030 according to ONI so sometime around then
>>30281770
>to think the decades of experience actually means anything
having an intellectual understanding of something is a far cry from having actual experience with it, although this is admittedly less of a factor the further from the front lines you get. the biggest thing thing you get from decades of constant, low-intensity warfare is the formation of a competent, tested NCO corps who know how to light fires under asses and keep shit moving when the rounds start flying around and people start getting fucked up. you can't think your way into that, you just need to have people who've done it.
>>30281770
>, and you'd be an idiot to think the decades of experience actually means anything.
You actually caused my eyelid to twitch.
8/10
Cruise missiles are $1 million each.
1000 anti ship cruise missiles for each carrier times 11 carriers = $11 billion.
Done.
>>30281850
>implying you can out spam the USN
Wew lad
>>30281770
>you'd be an idiot to think the decades of experience actually means anything.
Sure it does.
If someone who has never fucked your mother before were to approach her, he'd do somethings wrong and everything wouldn't be as efficient as they can be.
Compared to the guy who fucked her dozens of times. He'd know what her tells are. Her soft spots. What she likes and tolerates at what time and place.
To think actual combat experience or any in field experience is worthless vs. someone who has none, is completely stupid.
>>30281869
China already has.
They have more surface combatants, more major auxiliaries and massively more minor auxiliaries.
>>30281897
We counting frigates as "major auxiliaries" now?
Perhaps the one gun WWII vintage subchasers (an entire obsolete class) will make all the difference.
>Pathetic tonnage for a pathetic navy.
>>30281945
>FFG
>Auxiliary
Quality post from a quality board.
I'll take my leave.
>>30281880
>>30281849
>>30281840
We're talking an aircraft carrier, not "actual combat operations".
Designing and building one is most of the trouble, operating it is something easily worked out.
Nor does the US have any real experience in combat vs peers, not since the civil war.
>>30282084
>Nor does the US have any real experience in combat vs peers, not since the civil war.
>experience in logistics, troubleshooting issues, streamlining of operations, identifying problems that arise from heavy operations, are all not important.
>>30282013
good, fuck off chink
>>30279335
the US has decades of real world and combat experience.
to catch up technically by the chinese would be pretty easy, catching up in the experience of the crew and officers? thats the real hurdle
>>30279335
It's not about procurement or manufaturing. It's about experience. To truly become competent you need decades of experience.
>>30281897
>China already has.
A gorillion small ships with less overall tonnage does not a blue navy make.
>>30282013
>not getting the sarcasm
Please stay go.
>>30280216
>Anything else is just play-acting. Might as well ask how well the cast and crew of Black Hawk Down would perform in an actual combat mission
Excellent analogy. I'd always used the argument that buying a racecar doesn't make me a competitive racer, and the discussion would get bogged down in NASCAR vs Formula 1 shitposting.
>>30283915
THIS HERE AN MERICAN BOARD BOY, IF YOU DONT LIKE NASCAR YOU CAN GIT OUT.
FUKIN PINKO COMMIE ASS DUM SHIT FORMULA JAUN im done.
>>30281806
Competitive pay and benefits is what separates our military from others. We can prettt much wage a full scale war with a pure professional army consisting of volunteers.
The foreign bases gives us global reach. This is how you put 10,000 soldiers into a warzone in less than a week.
You have a topic with plenty of valid arguments to be made, but you made none of them that were correct.
>>30282203
This.
Winning in combat requires sound tactics. Winning wars requires logistics.
>>30281770
>you'd be an idiot
Oh the irony, now stfu and get a clue
>>30282084
>>30281162
>China can start to be on par with America
Not even close, and stupid to try. China has different strategic needs and goals. They don't need to project force around the globe, which reduces the number of necessary assets. China could accomplish everything they need to do with 4 carriers.
They also need to develop their own carrier doctrine. Blindly copying USN doctrine will bankrupt the PLAN, and needlessly waste ships, planes, and lives.
China doesn't have the depth of experience to make a US-style doctrine work. They certainly won't gain that experience in a decade. To put it into perspective, a decade is about how long US carriers spent conducting non-stop flight ops on Yankee Station.
>>30283927
I never said I don't like NASCAR. Any sport that has room for a man with a name like Dick Trickle is alright in my book.
>>30280216
OP is trying the "given a = b, discuss how a = b" trolly thing. Step back.
US carrier fleet's role is to bomb the shit out of little countries and/or factions who just lost their air defense to cruise missiles. Its overbuilt for the role.
When (when) China takes over global empire administration and has to do the same, they are likely to go with cheaper strike options. Carriers? there may be strike carriers but they won't do 40 knots, be compartmentalized redundant, etc. Probably won't be nuclear. Launch mainly drones.
At the moment the PLA carrier fleet is defensive, limited range air-sea combat denial oriented. Pic related fits that BTW. The other thing (air wings with hundreds of tons of bombs) may never happen.
>>30283492
>the US has decades of real world and combat experience.
Real 'combat experience' deteriorate over time. Most of the training comes from books which China also uses. Unless America gets real combat experience, China can get on the same level during peacetime.
>>30281869
How deep are our missile magazines? Do we actually have enough in storage to fight a real war?
>>30280216
I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese government was paying Chinese Americans to go into the military, learn procedures and bring them back to China.
>>30284518
>Most of the training comes from books which China also uses
Which are based off of...?
>>30285105
time to dust off those internment camps boys
>>30281258
That's not entirely correct, they do a lot of counter terror/insurgency shit in their own country, mostly the East if I remember right.
>>30284518
The books comment doesnt make any sense. What books?
And either way china's sub fleet is dogshit
>>30284281
I suspect they could accomplish everything they need to do with zero carriers.
I thought it was about prestige? 'Hurr durr we're a superpower now' stuff
>>30282203 no combat experience against peers since the civil war!what do you the German and Japanese militaries in ww2 dipshit it took us several years of losses and costly victories to developer an actual advantage that wasn't just pure industrial power
>>30285396
I'm not sure arresting monks and torturing them counts as counter-terror.
>>30285455
>I suspect they could accomplish everything they need to do with zero carriers.
They want to enforce their BS claims in the south china sea
>>30285468
And I'm totally certain that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
>>30285739
Fuck off chink.
>>30285456
>no combat experience against peers since the civil war
Technically he's right, you just have to narrow down the definition of peer, which would be other Americans. In that regard, he's correct.
That's like saying people from a specific country are born with natural fighting abilities. The south was no where near a peer to the north during the civil war in too many ways to type out on a phone. Besides militarily speaking a peer force is one that has similar capabilities as your own
>>30285456
>Nor does the US have any real experience in combat vs peers, not since the civil war.
WW2 doesn't count? USA vs USSR and China doesn't count in the Korean War either? You funny guy.
>>30285455
A big part of it is prestige. A bigger part is about becoming a regional power. China wants to control the SCS, mostly to guarantee a stable source of critical resources. They'll need 2 carriers to effectively do that. They're also putting a lot of effort into Africa, again because critical resources. A third carrier becomes necessary if they want any kind of plausibility in Africa. Fourth carrier so they can rotate refit/overhauls without shorting their strategic obligations.
If they decide to get any deeper into South America, they'll need another pair of carriers. That'll be where they pick up a bunch of proxy war experience, and deploying 'advisors', and the like.
>>30285779
Don't worry, there are lots of people that can read and are not ignorant.
They should stay focused on negating the advantage of our massive money sucking whore of a carrier fleet.
Our carriers assume a conflict like WW2 and there's been no major naval surface conflict since.
The real advantage is in having your anti-ship missile game in the bag
>>30286639
>The real advantage is in having your anti-ship missile game in the bag
Except we've been figuring out counters to that tactic for around 40 years. It was problematic when the Soviets did it because it was innovative. Now? Not so much. China has an unrealistic killchain, unworkable targeting, and they're enamored of hypersonics and ballistic missiles as part of the solution. Neither of those is workable as an antiship weapon. They'll work magnificently against stationary targets, but against a moving target they'll only produce an expensive splash.
>>30284510
that AWACS is cute
What's the model? A modified Y-12?
