The commissioning into service of China’s first domestically constructed aircraft carrier on the 17th of December 2019 marked a momentous paradigm shift, not only in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN’s) strategic philosophy, but it also introduced a new and important participant into the areas of carrier construction and operation.
This article was submitted to the UK Defence Journal by Kelvin Curnow. Kelvin’s particular area of interest is naval aircraft and aircraft carriers. He is a keen writer and over the past fifteen years he has had a number of articles published in different journals.
No longer was the West the primary proponent of aircraft carrier aviation, the launching of the SHANDONG (CV-17) meant the reality that this pre-eminence would not go unchallenged.
In 2017 the Royal Navy’s (RN’s) commissioning of HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH (R08) and the United States Navy’s (USN’s) launching of the USS GERALD R.FORD (CVN-78) marked important developments in the areas of aircraft carrier design and construction in the West. However, it was the 2017 launch of the SHANDONG on the 26th of April which marked a significant shift in the strategic balance, despite on paper it appearing to be significantly inferior to the British and American carriers.
With the intention of the UK government to send the QUEEN ELIZABETH through the South China Sea in 2021 it is relevant not only to consider the capabilities of the SHANDONG and its air wing, but how these compare those of the British carrier.
THE TYPE 002 SHANDONG DESCRIBED
The SHANDONG’s design is derived from the Kuznetsov class carrier LIAONING (Type 001) which was purchased as a hulk from Ukraine in 1995, refurbished and commissioned into service with the PLAN on 25 September, 2012. The LIAONING (CV 16) was laid down on 6 December 1985 at Shipyard 444 in Mykolaiv Ukraine, the only shipyard in the former Soviet Union which had built aircraft carriers including the four Kiev and the two Kuznetsov class.
Incredibly the story of the LIAONING began with an ex-PLA basketball star, Xu Zengping, who sealed the sale for what would become China’s first carrier. On March 19, 1998, Xu Zengping, in an open auction, outbid rivals from the US, Australia, South Korea and Japan. Secured for a knock down price of USD$20M the deal crucially included the sale of 40 tonnes of blueprints.
This would have significant ramifications. It gave China access to the blueprints used for completion of the LIAONING (ex VARYAG), and crucially plans to permit design and construction of the SHANDONG, obviating the need to undertake the drawn out process of reverse engineering key components. Aided by access to these technical drawings China’s development and deployment of aircraft carriers has been spectacular. In November 2016, less than four years after it was commissioned, LIAONING and her air wing were considered fully operational and ready for combat.
Just eighteen months later, on the 13 May 2018 the SHANDONG left a port outside the Dalian Shipyard for its first sea trial, signalling that China had completed its first domestically produced aircraft carrier in stunning rapidity.
While superficially similar to the LIAONING, the SHANDONG is very different in concept. Both the ADMIRAL KUZNETSOV and LIAONING suffer from the misconception that the Kuznetsov class was built to operate as an aircraft carrier, as understood by Western navies. Russia describes the KUZNETSOV as a Tyazholiy Avianesushchiy Kreyser (TAKR or TAVKR) – ‘heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser’, and that is exactly what she is, relying on her missile armament for her main means of attack and defence, together with a small complement of fighters to provide a further layer of self-defence.
The Chinese comprehend it differently and follow the doctrine and operating procedures of Western navies which consider the aircraft carried as the primary means of both attack and defence. Hence, in the LIAONING the silos for the twelve P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) anti-ship surface-to-surface missiles located below the forward flight deck in the KUZNETSOV have been removed. This has freed up storage space for fuel or ammunition. In the SHANDONG in addition to storage for more fuel and ammunition, this area is used for additional hangar space.
Superficially similar to the LIONING the SHANDONG features both significant and minor design changes. The ship weighs about 70,000 tons full load, is 1,033 ft (315 m) long and has a beam of 246 ft (76 m) at the flight deck, which makes her approximately 4,000tons heavier and 34.5 ft (10.5 m) longer than her predecessor. There are many examples of where the Chinese have not merely copied the design of the former Soviet vessel but have refined it, each pointing to her being used as an aircraft carrier in the strict sense of the term. For example, the SHANDONGs ski jump has an angle of 12.0° instead of the 14.0° on the LIAONING.
This is an angle ideal for launching the Shenyang J-15 fighter. Together with the enlarged hangar, the island which has been made smaller by 10%, and extended on sponsons in the aft-starboard quarter, space has been freed up allowing for up to eight more aircraft and helicopters to be carried. The island includes a second glazed deck which permits the bridge and flight control areas to be separate creating greater operational efficiency. It also features a faceted upper area of four Active Electronically Scanned Arrays (AESAs) for the Type 346A S-band radar.
THE AIR WING
The most significant component of the SHANDONG’s air wing is the Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark fighter. The J-15 is a reverse-engineered copy of the Russian Sukhoi SU-33 naval fighter designed to operate from the Short Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) carriers of the Kuznetsov class. The J-15 has suffered from major problems. Referring to two crashes in April 2016 an unnamed Chinese military source told the South China Morning Post (SCMP) that ‘the J-15 is a problematic aircraft – its unstable flight control system was the key factor behind the two fatal accidents two years ago’. As a result of the incidents the J-15 fleet was grounded for three months.
Even though Chinese authorities have only admitted two crashes it has been reported by the same newspaper that out of a total of twenty-four jets produced four have been lost. In addition to a series of unspecified mechanical problems with the aircraft, the shortcomings of STOBAR operations has not been lost on the Chinese military press, which in 2013 articles described the Flying Sharks as ‘flopping fish’.
Despite these issues China has refined the Russian design, equipping it with weapons, radar and systems of domestic origin which are superior to that of the Sukhoi. Nevertheless, operating from a STOBAR carrier imposes severe limitations on an aircraft the size of the J-15 which at an empty weight of 38,600 lb (17,500 kg) makes it over 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) heavier than a Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet. This makes it impossible for the fighter to launch with a full fuel and weapons load. From the two bow launching positions the J-15 has an estimated maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of between 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) and 56,000 lbs (25,402 kg) depending on wind over deck. From the waist launching position the MTOW is 62,832 lb (28,500 kg). The Sina Military Network (SMN) based in Beijing reported the J-15 could operate from the carrier equipped with two YJ-83K Eagle Strike anti-ship missiles (AShMs), two short-range PL-8 air-to-air missiles (AAMs), and four 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs.
However, carrying a weapons load exceeding 12 tons the aircraft not be flown off a ski ramp equipped carrier.
External loads are limited to two tons when the J-15 is carrying a full internal fuel load. In this configuration the J-15 can only take off from the waist launch position. Operating from the LIAONING J-15s have been seen carrying a pair of PL-12 medium-range AAMs, along with a pair of PL-8 AAMs. Other J-15s were seen carrying two YJ-83K AShMs.
In comparison to those loads carried by Boeing F/A-18, Lockheed Martin F-35C or Dassault Rafale M catapult launched carrier fighters these are very light loads. The difficulty of launching with a light fuel load is partially ameliorated by post-launch refuelling from other J-15s carrying a Shanyang centreline buddy refuelling store.
Despite the limitations imposed by STOBAR operations, the J-15 flown by a competent pilot would be a match for its western counterparts in air-to-air combat. Developments of the J-15 include the two-seat J-15S and the J-15D, an electronic warfare aircraft analogous to the EA-18G Growler. Each variant will offer additional capabilities over the baseline aircraft but will come with the additional problem of greater weight, only exacerbating the difficulty of operating these aircraft at heavy loads.
Lacking catapults, both the LIAONING and SHANDONG rely on Changhe Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAIC) Z-18J and Kamov KA-31 helicopters to provide airborne early warning (AEW). A typical air wing of the carriers would normally consist of four Z-18J early warning helicopters, six Z-18F Sea Eagle anti-submarine helicopters and two Harbin Z-9C search and rescue (SAR) helicopters.
THE FUTURE
Signifying a important development, in mid-September 2016 the United States Naval Institute News published photographs online of a J-15 with a nose gear launch bar used for catapult launches. There are possibly four prototypes of this aircraft and these have reportedly been tested using both the steam catapult and Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) at Huangdicun Airbase in Liaoning province, northern China. Both catapult tracks are approximately 460 ft (140 m) long. (This is not the first occasion on which the PLAN has undertaken tests with catapults.
In 1985 the catapult, arresting gear and landing sight were removed from the former Majestic class carrier HMAS MELBOURNE and installed at a base in Dalian on a replica flight deck where a modified Shenyang J-8 II was used for flight tests. MELBOURNE had been sold in February 1985 to the China United Shipbuilding Company ostensibly for scrapping.) These trials are in preparation for the service entry of the Type 003 Catapult Assisted Take-Off Barrier Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) 85,000 ton aircraft carrier, probably in 2024. An image of the carrier was posted on Chinese social media service WeChat in 2018 by the No. 701 Research Institute of the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC). It indicated that the carrier will be equipped with two bow and one waist catapult. PLAN sources have claimed the carrier will have EMALS rather than steam catapults. Given that the Type 003 will be conventionally powered and EMALS requires significant electrical power, usually provided via nuclear reactors, it is a significant achievement if indeed the Chinese have married the two technologies. However, development of the EMALS has been burdened by the same problems faced by the American programme. On 28 November 2019 the SCMP reported that tests of the EMALS involving the J-15 demonstrated that it had ‘failed to meet the required standard’.
An image appearing online in April 2019 showed J-15 fighters and a Xian Aircraft Corporation KJ-600 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft parked on the concrete carrier flight deck mock-up at the PLAN’s Shore Based Test Facility at Wuhan. The KJ-600, which has so far only appeared as a mock-up, is remarkably similar to the Northrop-Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, and the 1980s Soviet Yakovlev Yak-44 which also only appeared in model form.
It may be assumed that the KJ-600 relies on technology transferred from the Yakovlev design bureau. Although there is no hard evidence to support this assumption, there are ample examples of China acquiring Russian technological support to design and build its own aircraft, the CAIC Z-10 attack helicopter being a prime instance. Speculatively the KJ-600 weighs approximately 60,000 lbs which puts it in the same ballpark as the Hawkeye.
Unlike the E-2D which is equipped with the APY-9 radar featuring an active electronically scanned array, which adds electronic scanning to the mechanical rotation of the radar, the KJ-600 is depicted variously with either two or three phased arrays on a fixed radome. The KJ-600 will provide a quantum leap in capability over the AEW helicopters carried by both the LIAONING and SHANDONG if put into production.
Speculation has long surrounded the future of the J-15 which has been a useful introduction for the PLAN into operating fighters from carriers, but it is now a dated design. In April 2018 Chinese media announced that the J-15B had been placed into production, supplanting the earlier variant. Described as a 4++ generation fighter, it will feature an increased weapons payload of up to twelve air-to-air missiles (AAMs), and compatibility with both the new PL-15 active radar-guided very long range AAM and the YJ-12 Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM). The J-15B will also probably be equipped with three dimensional thrust vectoring engines, an AESA radar and updated avionics and electronic warfare systems. In December 2019 the Australian Defence Business Review (ABDR) reported that fifteen J-15B Flying Shark fighters and its J-15D electronic warfare derivative, Z-8, Z-9 and Ka-32 helicopters would equip the SHANDONG’s air wing. This is a reasonable estimate on the part of the ABDR, however, as noted above, the difficulties of operating the very heavy J-15D from a STOBAR carrier are significant, if not prohibitive. At this point there is no hard evidence to suggest that either the J-15B or J-15D have entered series production.
The Western technical press has for some time suggested that the Flying Shark may possibly be replaced by the Shenyang J-31 Gyrfalcon fifth-generation stealth fighter, an aircraft similar in size to the F-35, hence deemed suitable for carrier operations. However, in what could only be described as an amazing announcement the SCMP, quoting an anonymous military source, declared that the Central Military Commission, the People’s Liberation Army’s top decision-making body, favoured adapting the J-20 over the J-31 for its new carriers. The Chengdu Aerospace Corporation J-20 Powerful Dragon weighs 81,600 lb (37,013 kg) MTOW which in its definitive form will be powered by two Shenyang WS-15 afterburning turbofans with 180 kN (40,000 lbf) in reheat. (The current WS-10B or AL-31FM2 turbofans powering the J-20 would not provide sufficient thrust for carrier operations.) The J-20 is approximately 66.8 ft (20.4 m) long with a wingspan of 42.4 ft (13.5 m), the SCMP noting that the length of the aircraft will need to be shortened to facilitate carrier operations.
Preliminary sketches appearing in Western media depict it with folded wings. By way of comparison the J-15 has a MTOW of 62,832 lb (28,500 kg), is 71 ft 10 in (21.9 m) in length and has wingspan of 48 ft 3 in (14.7 m). Weight alone would make operations from a STOBAR carrier marginal, if not prohibitive. Rather than shortening the length of the aircraft, an odd statement by the SCMP given that the J-20 is not as long as the J-15, a weight reduction exercise would prove of more benefit. Moreover, the task of modifying the J-20 for carrier operations would be very difficult. Necessary modifications would need to be made to the undercarriage, the control laws for the fly by wire (FBW) system would need to be rewritten, the wing flaps would need revision, high lift devices may need to be added and the addition of thrust vectoring nozzles may also be required.
The J-20 has a maximum speed of Mach 2+ speed and an estimated range of 6,000 km (3,700 mi, 3,200 nmi) with full fuel load. These are significant numbers and signal that the PLAN is serious in maximising the potential of its future CATOBAR equipped aircraft carriers. On pure statistics the J-20 will far outstrip the kinetic performance parameters of the F-35C and F-35B, Hornet and Rafale. Given equivalence in pilot proficiency, with better stealth characteristics the J-20 should prove superior to F/A-18s and Rafale in overall performance. However, against F-35s which have a lower radar cross section (RCS) of 0.001 m2 as opposed to 0.25 m2 for the J-20, the balance would swing very much in the Lightning’s favour mainly because the detection range of the J-20’s Type 1475 (KLJ-5) AESA radar would be considerably inhibited. Detecting a J-20 using its AN/APG-81 AESA radar and AN/AAQ-37 Electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) before being identified by the Chinese fighter’s sensors, and armed with MBDA Meteor AAMs, the RN’s F-35Bs would have a significant advantage, with the high prospect of a ‘first-look, first-shot’ hence high kill probability (Pk).
Should the long-range shot miss and the two fighters join in the merge the outcome would depend on manoeuvrability, sensors, weapons and pilot skill. Despite the F-35’s poor reputation as a dogfighter, a reported kill ratio 20:1 in a 2017 Red Flag exercise suggests that this is far from the truth and against any aircraft other than the F-22, and probably the Typhoon, it would have an advantage in air-to-air combat. These kill ratio figures come amidst the ongoing criticism of the F-35’s poor thrust-to-weight ratio and overall performance figures. However, these ‘kills’ were against fourth generation fights such as the F-16 and F-15 which are claimed by the F-35’s critics to be superior dogfighters. Against a J-20 the F-35 will possess superior situational awareness providing a further advantage to its pilot. At 50% fuel the F-35 has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.07 which would be proximate to that of the J-20 powered by WS-15s, and superior to the J-20 if it was powered by its current lower thrust engines.
THE SHANDONG COMPARED TO THE QUEEN ELIZABETH CLASS
A comparison of the SHANDONG with the Queen Elizabeth class (QEC) carriers demonstrates that there are some similarities between the types, but more dissimilarities. Both feature ski ramps, however the SHANDONG is very much a compromise design configured for STOBAR operation of J-15 aircraft, itself derived from a land-based design which in itself is not the most optimal aircraft for carrier based operations. The QEC have a displacement of 65,000 tonnes, a length of 932 ft (284 m) and a beam of 128 ft (39 m) (waterline) and 240 ft (73 m) overall which makes them approximately the same size and weight of the SHANDONG. The QEC are able to carry an air wing of forty aircraft, the SHANDONG’s maximum complement being forty-four J-15s and helicopters.
This is a nominal figure given the configuration of the SHANDONG’s flight deck and the dimensions of the J-15, the actual figure is in all probability much less. The British carriers in comparison can carry a maximum of seventy aircraft in overload facilitated by possessing more than 19,500 m2 of flight deck as opposed to approximately 15,000 m2 for the SHANDONG.
The SHANDONG and LIAONING will share between them only twenty J-15s unless manufacture of the aircraft is restarted. Moreover, the full-width ski ramp of the Chinese carriers prevents any aircraft being parked forward as in American, French, Italian and British carriers. Forward of the island are the hold-backs and blast deflectors for two J-15s permitting launch in rapid succession, although moving more fighters forward and then flying them off the deck is considerably slowed by the inefficient launch process. As witnessed in the recent Westlant 19 deployment the single offset ski ramp on QUEEN ELIZABETH permitted aircraft to be parked forward. Moreover, the efficient operation of the Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) F-35B from the carrier demonstrated comprehensibly the superiority of a ship designed specifically for operating this version of the Lightning.
In addition the F-35B is not a compromise design, unlike the J-15 it was designed from the outset for STOVL operations from aircraft carriers and amphibious landing ships.
The F-35B has demonstrated it can be launched from the QEC in ‘beast mode’ with a weapon load comprising two MBDA ASRAAM missiles, four Raytheon AIM-120 AAMs and four Raytheon Paveway IV guided bombs. The fuel load is unknown, but there is a high possibility that the aircraft can be launched in this configuration carrying full internal fuel depending on such factors as length of the take-off run and wind over deck. It is certainly Lockheed Martin’s intention that the F-35B can operate off a ski ramp equipped carrier at MTOW and successful tests were undertaken using the ramp at NAS Patuxent River validating the concept finishing mid 2016. Employing Short Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) the aircraft would also have a high bring back load, but the conditions in which this technique can be used remains open to question.
At this point in time the UK has committed to buy forty-eight F-35Bs while maintain it still intends to order a total of one hundred and thirty-eight aircraft. With the projected long F-35 production run Britain can build up its numbers of aircraft over time. In contrast the J-15 is now out of production and the J-20 could prove prohibitively expensive to produce in large numbers. Taking into account all the factors a head-to-head comparison shows that the QEC and its air wing of F-35Bs is superior to China’s STOBAR aircraft carriers, with judgement reserved with respect to the Type 003.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM
The rapid and dramatic transition of the PLAN from a brown-water to a blue-water navy has considerable implications for the UK. China’s growth as a naval power should be seen in the context of her desire to impose hegemony inside the nine dash line, a nominal boundary within which the Chinese government wants to exercise sovereignty and control over all of the features contained within it, on the land, in the water, and on the seabed. The South China Sea occupies most of the area within this line. Chinese claims within the boundary have led to armed confrontation, notably with Vietnam and the Philippines which together which with denial of freedom of navigation (FON) signals that China is absolutely serious in pursuing its claims, legitimate or otherwise. China is also seeking to expand its economic power through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by developing infrastructure within China, across Europe, Asia, states in Eastern Africa and throughout the Indian-Pacific region.
Growing Chinese assertiveness, together with an increasingly belligerent Russia and the unresolved conflict with militant Islam means that the US, the UK and their allies could possibly be faced with multiple contiguous threats. In the worst possible scenario Western forces may be confronted by belligerent actions short of all-out war in the Baltic Sea, the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. The USN would find it difficult, if not impossible, to confront major naval actions by Russia, China and a Middle-Eastern country simultaneously. At the core of any response would be a USN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) however, there would be insufficient resources available to respond to these three scenarios. In this instance the US would look to both the RN and Marine Nationale (MN – French Navy) to provide carriers to supplement or even supplant US carriers.
CONCLUSION
Given the huge technological and qualitative advances the PLAN has made, particularly over the past decade, China can no longer be regarded as an irrelevant brown-water navy. The launch and subsequent operational deployment of the LIAONING signalled that Beijing had serious aspirations to become a naval power and to match the USN in the Indian-Pacific region at least. The SHANDONG and the Type 055D destroyers are further signs of this intention. Even though the Type 003 will mark a step change in capability it cannot be ignored that the SHANDONG is the most significant factor so far in securing the future of Chinese aircraft carrier construction, and her growing naval airpower.
These realities, and given the current strategic environment, together with the UK government’s desire to project a ‘Global Britain’ post-Brexit it could do well to prepare an adequate response to protect her own assets and those of her allies, committing not only to carrier aviation but to an expanded RN. It is only by doing so that the UK will be able to keep open sea lanes and choke points which moving beyond Europe are now vital to her trade with the world.
The analysis of this ship and it’s planes seems at odds with the conclusions.
Hi Trevor Maybe, but I think Kelvin’s point ( ? ) is that the PLAN have intentions to become blue water but are lacking full equipment capabilities and perhaps the confidence in what they have managed to bring forward so far. This doesn’t mean they’ll give up.
Indeed it’s looking forward 5 to 10 years.
“Just a big target”
It works both ways.
But in all seriousness, we should be prioritising the RN, RAF, and the Intelligence community in the SDSR.
Especially given Ben Wallace’s comments today on having to rethink our strategies and not relying on being alongside the US in all conflicts.
I’d like to think that some extra cash might be found for defence. Wishful thinking, probably.
From what has been reported in the FT Telegraph and Times the Uk Government seems to be about to embark on another Treasury Driven hack and slash defence review, in terms of our conventional capability’s. Certainly the two Aircraft Carriers are in the firing line, so I fear we will, as usual , see a series of mindless cuts rather then investment.
I bet the PRC would love the F35B for their carriers.
Have the Chinese ever created a weapon system on their own without stealing someone else’s tech??
Pretty sure they invented the crossbow.
They invented gunpowder. Nothing since then, though!
And the rest of the world keeps giving them the tech to reverse engineer.
When will we wake up!!!!
That’s partly the reason for Trump’s trade war with a China. For a foreign company to manufacture in China they have to partner with a local company and share intellectual property rights. That’s a major source of their IP harvesting.
The Chinese have made enoumous strides in their domestic defence technology Dan.
They are in a unique position in the world as both an authoritarian regime and a very successful economy.
It means the money and will is there to ‘make’ it happen.
Take the J20, it’s flawed yes, but if it was a Western design, it wouldn’t even be near first flight yet!
The Chinese have them in service, they have learned the lessons of the J20 and you can bet the next much improved generation is already designed and probably under construction.
The rate of Chinese technical advancement is quite frankly astonishing.
At this rate, their equipment will be at full parity with the West in 10 years and probably ahead of us in 20.
They have lauched rockets into space, they have their own space station, they are making progress in quantum computers, advanced radars, 5g networks etc…. They are not as simple as you think. In fact many components in western high tech equipment is made in China like computer chips, motherboards etc… If we went to war with China this would become a problem since a lot of western manufacturing has been outsourced to China
There’s also the trebuchet(the Arabs or Persians added the counterweight), but we wrote off the Japanese similarly before WW2 & were nastily surprised when they kicked our butts.
Never under estimate youir enemies, especially when at the extreme end of decades of perversely cutting defence capabilities.
They copied American, Russian and British Technology
Which was, in turn, copied from British and German Technology
At a time that the world’s premier operator of carriers seems to be stepping back from the type going into the future, the PLAN seems to be emulating what they perceive is a requirement to be a “Great Power”. They look around them and copy what current first tier militaries operate and then emulate that even though the concept may already be in eclipse. Very similar in many ways to Imperial Japan on the eve of WWII although the IJN had embraced aircraft carriers before the USN was forced to after Pearl Harbor.
Cheers
The US is not “stepping back” from the aircraft carrier. The evidence is quite the opposite. The US has three Ford class carriers either launched or being constructed and has provided funding for a fourth. Some step back.
As I replied before, “only time will tell”…
Cheers!
Interesting article, one that demands serious attention. However, politics, economics and geography are more significant than technology in projecting military power; it helps but it is not all of defence. China’s rise in the maritime sphere has seemingly been cost-free in diplomatic terms as far as China sees matters. She may do as she wishes she seems to think. Perhaps not. We may soon see countries coming together in mutual support unimagined only a few years ago: U.S. bases in South East Asia? Impossible? Do not place this development out of court. A swathe of countries will have to decide quite soon what their long term national and regional interests are in the light of a more outbound China and who can best help preserve these. A U.S.A. that takes up a regressive posture would be a bad future; one that matches China’s famed adroitness in the politic and diplomatic game could keep many onside; it should not be scorned. It also may be geography that intervenes. China’s approaches to the Pacific are not ideal, hence the island building and ludicrous in international lae terms demands of exclusion in what were ‘until yesterday’, open seas. She is flanked left right and centre by countries she has not taken better care not to frighten into the west’s orbit. This must be exploited. Ultimately the west’s best defence is its culture and political systems. After all, who are swimming with their own children to get to countries run by totalitarians?
Your last sentence hits the nail on the head Barry. No matter what anyone anywhere says of their political and social order, be they master or average Joe, NO ONE ever attempted to cross out of West Berlin to the East or from South to North Korea or from Europe to Africa in a small boat! As to the PLAN’s Shandong, it seems to me that they have taken a hugely flawed design and at great expense produced a greatly inferior carrier equipped with aircraft totally unsuitable to task and significantly compromised in performance-all at great expense! It would have been much better to start from scratch with a smaller, less ambitious design with either a proper conventional fit or dedicated VSTOL design. Now they have neither.
It’s a testimony to aircraft carrier alliance and British industry how easily we were able to build both QEC carriers so quickly and at relativity small cost after no attempting to build such vessels for 50 years, when one looks at how Long China has taken to simply make some knock off 1970’s Russian carriers. The mind boggles why the Torys are obsessed with getting rid of one or both of these ships. They are worth more than the rest of the MOD combined.
It’s sickening that every year without fail some high placed Tory minister and MOD officials float the idea of selling or scrapping them. Imagine the never ending effect on the crews especially given the Torys history of scrapping British aircraft carriers for little justification.
Source for your “Torys are obsessed with getting rid of one or both of these ships”? Or are you spinning political rhetoric?
Mr Cummings is the man put in charge of defence procurement by the Prime Minister. He’s made his position known.
“I wrote in 2004 about the farce of the UK aircraft carrier procurement story (and many others have warned similarly). Regardless of elections, the farce has continued to squander billions of pounds, enriching some of the worst corporate looters and corrupting public life via the revolving door of officials/lobbyists. Scrutiny by our MPs has been contemptible. They have built platforms that already cannot be sent to a serious war against a serious enemy. A teenager will be able to deploy a drone from their smartphone to sink one of these multi-billion dollar platforms.”
Dominic Cummings’ Blog, March 2019. Does he sound like an advocate for the UK carrier programme to you?
Source is history, 1981 Torys scrap carriers, 2010 Torys scrap all carriers now Troys initiative defence review on the basis of Carriers are a farce and a waste of money.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7796581/PMs-maverick-aide-Dominic-Cummings-overhaul-wasteful-defence-spending.html
Could you please provide me with any evidence where the Torys were a friend to aircraft carriers?
Since 2010 it’s been an annual headline in Tory press that the carriers are to be scrapped or sold.
France does not have an annual headline on scrapping CDG
Nor does the USA or anyone else that has them.
Source is your blinkered Momentum based view of reality, you mean…
1980’s – we got the Invincible class, we would we keep the ones they replaced?
2010 – after Labour splurges all the cash the Coalition looked at cancelling them. Thankfully the contracts were watertight and although their original plan was to mothball one, in 2014 they announced both would be operational.
The procurement of the carriers has been a farce. Their build was stretched out to reduce annual spending but with the result the overall price went up. Another brilliant idea from the Treasury.
And because Blair wanted these to be at the centre of EU Navy strike groups, the replacement of our escort frigates has dragged on and on.
We also have 2 carriers but only enough F35Bs to half equip one of them.
So brilliant ships, good work by the RN in regaining carrier strike capability, but repeatedly let down by politicians of all colours in their funding.
It’s so disengenuous, you hate the Torys and the so-called ‘Tory press’ yet you quote and reference them for your arguments. That’s kinda schizo ?
And you’d be wrong. France already cancelled one carrier – which was to be based on the QE design and there’s concern in The US Congress about cancelling older carriers mid-life refuelling in order to save money but would obviously shorten their lives.
”It’s so disengenuous, you hate the Torys and the so-called ‘Tory press’ yet you quote and reference them for your arguments. That’s kinda schizo ?“
His argument was partly against the Tory press though, so in what other way can you back up an argument against what the Tory press are saying other than quoting them
?
I never said I hate the Torys (hate them as much as labour anyway) I’m just pointing out facts that Torys are often uncomfortable with. The fact is the Torys have been the party to cut more off defence than anyone. The last time they increased the defence budgets was 1937.
Well he quotes the so-called “Tory press” as proof of his case, yet he will undoubtedly dismiss what they report as “Tory lies”.
Fact is there’s no “Tory press”, the Conservative Party don’t control any newspapers. And even those with a centre-right bias will outside of election season, post stories that are embarrassing or that undermine a Conservative Press.
(The same is true for the “Socialist Press”; Guardian, Mirror, Independent, Morning Star, etc.)
And surely you naive souls know not to believe everything you read in the press?!? ?
Sorry Sean but I got nothing to do with the Labour Party and hate momentum. Knox had invincible sold to Australia and Hermes in the scrap yard following his review if it had not been for the FI then the UK would not even have had the invincible’s which are really helicopter cruisers anyway. The Torys are always obsessed with cutting stuff and will generally cut what ever is politically easiest that’s why Bojo and Cummings already have the QE’s in their sights. 6 billion for two super carriers is a bargain but now Cummings is calling it a farce and he basically runs the country.
You may not be a card carrying member, but the fact that you use the abusive term “Tory” shows your political stance – that term wouldn’t be used by someone in the right.
I have no argument, Knox was a twat. But then the first term Thatcher government inherited a country that had almost been bankrupted by the previous Labour administrations. If Labour didn’t keep spending all the money and getting the country into deep debt everytime it got into office, the Conservatives wouldn’t have to make cutbacks whenever they regained power.
Bojo and Cummings haven’t got the the QEs in their sights. His criticism of the cost of the project is from years ago – he rarely actually blogs which is where the quote is misquoted from.
The carriers are a great price compared to the Ford class, but they could actually have been even cheaper had the build not been deliberately slowed to spread the cost, which also rinflated it. (Exactly the same was down with T26, resulting in the unplanned Batch 2 Rivers having to be ordered ?♂️.)
And you clearly know nothing about Cummings, he’s no “Tory”. But he is a disruptive thinker, and a winner, which is why Boris brought him on board.
I would expect Cummings coming down hard on the civil servants at the MoD and on monopolistic suppliers like BAE. And I would also see him encouraging greater investment in drone technology for the carriers to make up for the lack of F35Bs.
A lot of navies are looking to follow our model rather than the US model with regard to carrier operations. That means we can leverage both our unique experience, eg rolling landings, to sell our technologies, eg Bedford Array, Crowsnest, wingman drones, etc.
But at the end of the day Cummings is just a SPAD, the Defence Minuster and the Prime Minister will have the final say. And Cummings greater interests are in the NHS, Whitehall reform, and technology, not defence per se.
Tory is not a term of abuse. In the same way communist is not a term of abuse.
Yes it’s is. You will never hear members of the Conservative Party use that term about themselves or the party. In fact, if you knew political history you’d know that the Tory Party became defunct over a hundred years ago.
But I guess it’s easier for Labour supporters to spit the term “Tory” as a form of abusive as it’s monosyllabic so it’s not too intellectually taxing.
Actually many members of the Conservative party self identify as Tories. It did not become defunct it merged.
Completely wrong on both counts, but then you seem to have made it a habit of being wrong ?
Lol you may want to look at the history of the Conservative party……..
when did Tory become abusive? That’s what they are.
Don’t you find it embarrassing making such such hilariously inaccurate statements publicly. The Conservatives have never been the Tory Party, doing so is as ridiculous as calling the Liberals the Whigs or Roundhead party. ?
The term only gets used because when those on the left invariably lose any logical arguments they resort to name calling, and ‘Tory’, ‘Fascist’ etc are the terms they usually throw.
Stop being such a political snowflake, Tory and fascist are completely different and since when have a few people taking a word and throwing it around as an insult defined everyone’s complete understanding of a word ( I will use the word gay as an example, when you own the word it removes the power of the insult).
Going to the formation of the consecutive and unionist party as we know it, I has a long history complex history or merging and spilling groups, but a couple of areas I like to think around:
The Modern party (I think) can be traced from the Conservatism of the 1830s which saw a merging of Whig economic and Tory social ideas, this become the root of modern conservatism with the mix being almost complete in the early 20C after the merger with the liberal unionist. I would say a final mixing and change took place due to the trauma of two world wars and finally the embedment of neoliberalism by Mrs MT in the 80s. That’s why it’s a Broad church party…..it’s a merger of lots of other ideas and movements…..including “shock horror” the early 19C Tory ideals (So in my view to be conservative is to be fundamentally Tory and there is nothing wrong with that)
Moving away from the history of the “Tory” party And onto the word “Tory”. The oxford dictionary and all others with any rigour support my view of the meaning of the word Tory. It’s not got an official meaning as an insult used against members of the Conservative party….
But as I iterated at the beginning, the use of words is very personal and most labels can be used or taken as an insult….but it does not mean the word itself is an insult.
I use the word “Tory” ( as do the majority of British media, including media on the right) as an easy way to describe the politics of modern centre right conservatism. I would not consider it an insult unless it was linked it in with a few other words to creat a sentence and some basic context that was insulting, for example:
“For goodness sake stop being such a Tory boy”
But for the most part I see it used it in sentences as simple neutral adjective, mainly because “conservative and unionist” is a bit clunky and long winded. So:
“The Tory party leadership contest is a bit close“
You can do the same sort of thing with lots of words. The English language is amazing.
It’s never black and white and making making right and wrong definitive Statements, like the word “Tory is an insult” is never the whole truth. Words have many meanings Or uses and they are all general correct in some way. As for history it’s is nothing more than the interpretation of actions and motives of people long dead and events long forgotten to memory.
Slight difference to 1981 and 2010 in 2020 we have not had 5+ years of labour trying to bankrupt the nation.
That’s the argument already used but those carriers cost 60 million a year to run so seriously what difference cutting them does it make to the national debt. Osbourne was hell bent on getting government spending to 36% but unwilling to to cut health or any big budgets. Why put trident renewal onto MOD Budget when the spending won’t happen until the 2020’s and the deficit was suppose to be gone by 2015?
But they didn’t cost 60 million a year to run, at some point one of them would need a re-fit in order for it to keep running at those costs. On top of that with time the costs to keep them afloat and in use would have spiralled. Who will cut the NHS its political suicide?
The deficit is a complicated problem that changes along with the economy and world markets, just be thankful Corbyn didn’t get in as we would have never seen a deficit like it since WW2.
What was the savings vs a 100 billion a year deficit of scrapping carriers virtually nothing. Defence is about the only budget Osbourne actually cut. That and police which is suppose to be the “conservatives” (apparently they don’t like being called Torys) strong point.
Now Bojo is looking to cut stuff and the carriers are in his sight.
The current emphasis seems to be on getting right the procurement for future assets as the carriers are bought and paid for. The escorts need to be in good shape and properly armed quickly and there needs to be money invested in future tech. It is always important to ensure from all sides that the relationship with existing suppliers is not too cosy and is good value. Also are we not sometimes excluding new companies who might have something new to offer.
It is not just about money or effective value for money or what to do with these assets. If you have spent forty years inculcating your own young people with the idea that they are born into a wicked country with a lengthy disgraceful past, one of oppressing others and robbing the world for treasure, then unsurprisingly the notion of serving said country is not going to be a priority for many. Plus we have wound down competitive sport to the point where those professionals who can compete well are largely drawn from ‘troubled’ backgrounds and therefore are used to mixing it for sheer survival so to speak. Mental toughness is probably filed away under ‘masculine toxicity’ these days.
I exaggerate? The only Prime Minister to run the country down I know of was Mr Cameron who said most of the world’s problems were cause by Great Britain. An over promoted Public Relations man.
We have dithered enough and are hopelessly defeatist, especially in the better off sectors of society where our elites come from. I hope to live long enough for some of the justified pride in our countries – and earthy Tommy criticism too! – that I knew sixty years ago, returns and soon.
Barry – interesting points.
My personal view is that the young generation today have little if any experience of war. Relative peace on this continent since the second world war has removed it as a concern for most. Whilst I am pleased with that peace as many of us would not be here otherwise, the complacency which has appeared is worrying.
Having said that I still feel that the silent majority in this country take a dim view of defeatist and negative attitudes. An effective defence is expected amongst the public even if they show little day to day interest in the subject.
The current PM seems to be hideously optimistic, fizzing with enthusiasm so I wouldn’t expect any Cameron like comments from him. We can only but wait to see what impact he has – positive I hope.
Mark and Barry,
I totally agree with you both.
Unfortunately, we are our own worst enemy at times, but the election result ‘might’ just be the sign of a long awaited (and needed) reset in society.
Fortunately, it seems sensible folk are still in the majority and the glass half empty doubters are still limited in their ability to run the country down, despite their best efforts.
And finally, the penny drops!
“Britain may have to fight future conflicts without the help of the US as its key ally, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has warned.”
https://news.sky.com/story/defence-secretary-ben-wallace-fears-us-may-no-longer-be-uks-key-ally-in-conflicts-11906727
The US has never been a fan of European wars hence the reason they opted (successfully) for a strategy to deter further wars after WW2.
Agreed we should not make any assumptions about the support of any country. We should make a range of alliances yet be able to stand up for ourselves.
I believe we can do that if we allocate our resources wisely and still invest in great Hospitals, Schools etc. (wow aren’t I feeling positive).
Totally agree with everything you say and I also believe that ‘DC’ was one of the worst PM’s we have had in terms of defence and our sense of national pride/resilience, its notable to me at least that the toxic notion of ‘managed decline’ seemed to made a comeback under that Prime minister, something that the Thatcher Government had appeared to have dispelled.
Totally agree, if this Gov embarks on an other demolition job on our armed forces, then I can guarantee that they will already have lost my vote, a record after barely a month in power. I just can not understand why so many ministers in parliament seem hell bent on diminishing this country’s clout on the world stage. They never seem to learn any of the lessons of history, the weaker you appear the more the bully regimes of the world target you as a pushover, particularly important for a nation such as ours that relies so heavily on free trade and the maintenance of its trade routes, as oppose the U.S.A for example, that has a massive domestic market that can help compensate her trade.
Your comment how true they are. Unfortunately as a rule the Tory chattering classes don’t do strategy especially military strategy ( even more so Naval strategy- see Max Hastings )because it’s so last year/war and only fit for anorak types. Well there is a shock in store if they don’t get with it if USA goes as isolationist and/or as libtard as it very well might. Just look at 1981 and John Nott for precedent and sorry to say Carrington who as an ex Navy Minister should have known better. Oh dear please not again!
The last Conservative who more or less understood it was W.S.Churchill.
The Royal Navy has to be front and center in the next SDSR, the money has to raised and spent rebuilding the RN after decades of neglect.
Interesting that the Chinese never opted to continue their COGAS/COGES studies in the 1990s and develop a 45,000t CATOBAR carrier with steam catapults. While smaller, that would have provided a more efficient ship than the Liaoniang and Shandong ships, and easier to move to EMALS ops down the line. But presumably it was felt to be easier to copy the Russian method, and perhaps they – like the USN – thought EMALS tech would mature sooner.
“Interesting that the Chinese never opted to continue their COGAS/COGES studies in the 1990s and develop a 45,000t CATOBAR carrier with steam catapults. ”
That was because during the 90’s the hierarchy of the PLA that the PLAN was still very subservient to at the time was deep into a discussion about what direction investment and fleet development should go. Should they remain a largely brown water coastal force or should they become a blue water one with the ability to project power beyond the second Island chain. On deciding to pursue a Blue water force there was a separate debate about building a navy built around carriers or one that used heavy missile cruiser. Ironically they have adopted a mixed approach with a carrier programme and the development of ever larger destroyers leading to the 055 class so far. In the short term during the 90’s and largely driven by the potent naval power displayed by NATO forces during Desert storm the Chinese adopted a short policy of buying whatever new stuff they could get off Russia at the time. This did give the side effect of showing China the state of where Russian ship building and naval technology was.
“While smaller, that would have provided a more efficient ship than the Liaoniang and Shandong ships, and easier to move to EMALS ops down the line. But presumably it was felt to be easier to copy the Russian method, and perhaps they – like the USN – thought EMALS tech would mature sooner.”
A rather big set of assumptions there, a few people on this thread seem to have the idea that China should have just gone ahead and built something indigenous straight from the get-go! Put simply they were not in the position to do that until quite recently. Chinese ship building in the late 90’s and through the noughties was in no position to design and build something as complex as an aircraft carrier. It should be noted that to build the Shandong required significant modification to the CSIC yard at Dailan and for future aircraft carriers the Chinese have also built an entirely new purpose built yard at Jiangnan to supplement Dailan.
Designing and building an aircraft carrier is no simple task due to the unique nature of their operation and the asymmetric layout of their design, even ballasting out an aircraft carrier takes significant experience. Nations like the US and UK who have decades of experience designing and building aircraft carriers still find it challenging. For example every single Nimitz class built has on average a 1.5 degree list to Starboard and this is despite much effort thrown at trying to sort it out by arguably the most experienced carrier nation on the planet. For China this is a radically challenging process and those who follow such things are surprised at how fast they have been moving once the commitment was made.
Adopting a variant of the Kuznetsov class however flawed helped China speed up the trial an error process and the windfall of blueprints that came as part of the deal would have been highly useful answering some of the questions when it comes to layout and ballasting. Rumours are the document windfall from the Ukraine also included information or even blueprints for the Project 1143.7 Ulyanovsk 85,000 ton conventional carrier that was actually in build at the Mykolaiv yard alongside the Varyag before it was cancelled at 40% completion.
As to why build a STOBAR carrier with J-15 jets that are hampered by that configuration the answer is to speed up adoption of a CATOBAR carrier. The most difficult aspect of CATOBAR carrier operations is landing followed by handling the complex deck environment during take off and landing operations. Lioning and Shandong allow the PLAN/China Navy to practice both of those aspects of carrier operations. Waiting for a purely indigenous domestic CATOBAR design would have added ten to fifteen years to the programme at least. By adopting an interim class of STOBAR carriers they speed up the process and gain useful operational feedback both in ship design and flight operations that can be fed into their CATOBAR programme.
Currently China has a 85,000 ton CATOBAR carrier in build at Jianyang and another going into build at Dailan. The experience built up using Lioning and Shandong will significantly help their entry to service. In the future I see their STOBAR carriers supporting ASW operations as their lightly armed J-15 would be useful for point defence and they have a nice big deck that can carry plenty of the new Z-20 ASW helicopter.
In some respects I disagree, this is based purely on them buying HMAS Melborne back in the 90’s. The Australians sold them the ship in full working order including the steam catapult. Granted the design of the ship dated back to the second world war and was meant to be scraped after 5 years of service. But the majestic class although small had all the big carrier attributes such as catapult, angled deck, landing aids, armoured deck and built to withstand battle damage. The carrier although obsolete by modern standards, would have been a major boon for the Chinese. They even tried to by the blueprints, but were politely declined by the Aussies.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the Chinese did copy the steam catapult steam and built it on a shore based facility. They have modified a couple J15’s with launch bridles on the nose wheel. The aircraft has successfully been launched with a war load appropriate to a typical Su27/33. So they actually do have a working catapult, but it’s steam powered. Apparently the EMALS isn’t working as expected. So could the next 003 carrier use steam catapults, as at least they know they work?
The problem is as I stated above the PLA/PLAN had not finalised a decision about going for a Carrier programme in the 90’s. They were deep into a doctrinal debate that eventually fed into a fifty year plan published in the next decade. Chinese ship building needed significant modernisation before they could even consider designing their own Aircraft Carrier, there just wasn’t the institutional knowledge in place.
HMAS Melborne as a useful tool to experiment with the technologies involved but it was no way enough to allow them to fully kick off a full Carrier development programme.
Purchase of a Kuznetsov class carrier and a huge amount of documentation allowed them to shorten that R&D programme but even then they were in no position to start construction of a fully indigenous design until very recently with Type 003.
I am inclined to think the Chinese will play it safe and fit steam catapults to Type 003.
The acquisition of the Liaoning (ex Varyarg) should be made into a spy movie. But you could also include the slightly underhand purchase of the Melborne. Both ships helped the Chinese ship building industry and were sold for non military use.
However, I am not confident on their build quality control, as the emphasis of the Party was to deliver the ships as early as possible. So how sea worthy they are is open to debate. Battle damage is another crucial area where they have very little experience in, either in design or real life experience to base their training on. I think it was Gunbuster who has previously commented on their shoddy build standards, from first hand experience.
I’m tending to agree that the next 003 carrier will play it safe and use the steam catapult, rather than immediately going down the EMALS route. Especially as the carrier is going to be conventionally powered where EMALS places a massive demand on electrical production.
Their new carrier is a copy….. their main fighter jets are Russian knock-off’s, as are the helicopters, and their proposed AEW aircraft looks suspiciously like a Hawkeye….. you’ve got to give it to them, why develop your own technology when you can just steal everyone else’s!
The Lightning may be superior to both the J-15 and any potential naval J-20 variant, but there’s a big advantage they both have over our airwing: anti ship missiles. Carrier strike may return in 2021, but given current plans the RN is going to remain with no air launched surface attack weapon until Perseus in ~2030.
Spear 3 is incoming and will be integrated in the f35 block 4 upgrade. Not likely to sink larger surface ships but ample to knock them out the fight. Especially as and f35 can carry 8 internally. 8 of those is going to seriously hurt.
Spear 3 is planned for the f35s by the mid 20s.
With the numbers planned to be carried, even a single f35 will be able to saturate a target.
Yes it’s a small warhead but you don’t need much to mission kill a modern warship, especially if it can target specific systems, ( Accidental hits by single ARM missiles have been known to mission kill AAW cruisers).
4 f35bs will be able to launch 64 spear 3s at a target, that’s far more likely to do the job that 8 heavy weight anti ship missiles (which are not going to be able to provide the level of saturation needed for most well protected targets)
With the range it has and the numbers to be carried by an f35B (8 internal and 8 external) Elizabeth’s air wing will have more ability to saturate a targets air defences per sortie than anything else afloat (even a US carrier air wing, until the US introduce something similar).
I’ll be honest, I’d completely forgotten about SPEAR 3, and your suggestion for a saturation attack has merit. However, there are a couple of major flaws. For the sake of brevity, I’ll highlight the two biggest.
Firstly, range. SPEAR 3 has a quoted range of about 130km, which is short enough that the Lightnings themselves are going to be flying into engagement range of the ship’s air defences. Compare that to even Harpoon, where aircraft can sling them from well outside engagement range (this is assuming accurate enough targeting data in both cases).
Second major issue, related to range, is stealth. In order to safely and successfully engage a target with such a short range weapon, the Lightning is going to want to be flying clean, with no external weapons. That halves the payload of SPEAR you’re carrying, which is obviously far from ideal for a saturation weapon. Compared to a longer range weapon, which could be carried externally with a far lower risk of being detected at firing range.
In terms of comparison, the flight of 4 aircraft you used as a basis could only practically carry 32 SPEARs, compared to 8 dedicated AShMs that have more than double the range and in excess of 5 times the speed (based off the current targets of the Perseus missile, which in terms of physical capabilities is about average for Russian-derived weapons but will likely be far more advanced in terms of stealth, sensors, and penaids). I honestly don’t know which would be more effective, but the much faster missiles are much more likely to evade ship defences that a wave of SPEARs, which would likely be very vulnerable to modern and future CIWS (being subsonic, lasers and probably even Phalanx would decimate them)
That is true around range, although the reality is that depending on ROE, altitude of approach, escape vectors and speed it’s very unlikely that:
1) a war ship will be detecting and usefully engaging a fighter ( that’s hiding) at 130km with its organic radar or AAW systems ( even a type 45 cant bend energy waveforms around the horizon) and the fighter will not be waiting around at the 130km line but will be buggering off.
2) is very unlikely any heavyweight ASM will ever get fired at anything other than ranges that will allow you to finding and identify a target. Shipping lanes are full of cruise ships, first antagonist to put a heavyweight ASM into a cruise ship and kills 5000 innocents losses whichever war they were fighting.
The concept of fast high flying obvious heavyweight missiles is just not proven over slower, harder to see missiles.
Look at the shipping sunk or mission killed by western powers from the falklands to gulf 2, the west has launched plenty of little anti ship missiles or torpedoes to good effect but never a heavyweight ASM.
Both fair points, however that’s assuming the targeting is being done by the attacking Lightnings. Alternative offboard targeting methods (drones or satellites for example) would make the range issue relevant again.
I’m not talking about fast, high flying missiles. Perseus and comparable missiles are sea skimming as well as being high-supersonic. Realistically a lone surface ship is going to have less than 30 seconds to react to most such weapons (against a Mach 5 weapon it’s under 10 seconds).
The shipping attacked during Gulf 1 was by light anti ship missiles like Sea Skua against patrol boats, corvettes, and a minelayer if memory serves. That wasn’t against a peer foe, those were all soft targets in a very cluttered environment. Against a Russian or Chinese battle group, however, those light AShMs carried by helicopters would be useless and too vulnerable.
A SPEAR saturation attack is viable against Iran’s horde of FACs for securing the straits of Hormuz, but to threaten a carrier group requires a dedicated AShM that the RN and RAF have no plans for for the next decade.
We have the Astute Class, probably the most effective weapon on the planet at taking out somebody else’s warships. The mear threat that one might be in the enemy’s back yard would be enough to keep most Navy’s safely in port. And the Spearfish torpedo is more like a under water cruise missile, then a conventional torpedo.
The threat of a nuclear submarine being around is obviously no joke, but they’re a scarce resource. The oceans a big place, and submarines lack the massive threat bubble and rapid response aircraft offer. There’s also the issue of most of the disputed areas being in relatively shallow waters (the Gulf and SCS), where big nuclear boats are limited.
Don’t forget the attack by the Iragi Silkworm destroyed by Sea Dart from HMS Gloucester that was aimed at the “Mighty Mo”! The Silkworm is a monster of an anti-ship missile, old yes but easily ship a modern frigate/destroyer on its own.
Here’s another point of view and possibly a future scenario of a Chinese CBG based on the Shandong facing up to the Liz CBG. The Chinese like us will have a AEW helicopter aloft either a Z19J or Kamove KA31 along with a pair of J15s on CAP. For any attack the AEW helicopter will be the primary target before attacking the CBG, the F35 can get well within Meteor range to engage it before being detected. Once it has been neutralised, the J15s will likely go active, trying to search for the attacker. These again will be seen way before the F35 is detected and a pair of Meteors will be on their way to remove them.
Now that the Chinese CBG know something is amiss, they will probably go active with their search radars trying to build a protective screen over their ships. But they have just announced their position. The F35 is probably on par with the F18 Growler for electronic surveillance and will have detected the CBG way before its seen. You will always detect a radar before it can see you, due to the way the transmitted signal has to be reflected off an object. The reflected signal is dependent on the target’s radar cross section and determines when the object is recognised as a threat.
An attack by a flight of F35s will be done using similar tactics that the Argentians used when launching Exocets during the Falklands War. Once the CBG has been located they will fly low level using the horizon to hide behind. They could get within 30km dependent on the outer screen protection, flying at wave top level. Only one aircraft needs to pop up slightly to relocate and fix the CBG’s position. The data is relayed to the rest of the flight who launch their weapons from behind the horizon.
Currently the only weapon they can use is the Spear 3. This will probably be a mix of standard and the EW version. By using a mix, the EW version can either jam or spoof the CBG’s tracking radar allowing the standard missiles to target the ships. Each F35 can carry eight internally with another six under the wings, i.e fourteen per aircraft or 56 between the flight of four. If a group of twelve aircraft attack the CBG at the same time this could be as many as 168 missiles attacking the ships. A very large proportion of these would make it through to hit the ships.
There is hope that our F35s will also get the NSM anti-ship or JSM multi-role missile. At the moment these can only be carried under the wings of the F35B. But Japan have asked Kongsberg, to see if it can be modified to fit internally. Regardless, if a flight of four F35s had a pair of NSM/JSMs under the wing and eight Spear 3 internally, this would make a very deadly mix, especially if some of the Spears were the EW version, to jam the ships radars. The NSM was designed to be radar and IR stealthy and can use its imaging infra-red seeker to target specific parts of the ship relayed back to the launch aircraft by 2 way data-link. The NSM has quite a light warhead, so will not directly sink a carrier. But it doesn’t need to, if a pair hit each of the Shandong’s aircraft lifts or hits the drive shaft area and removes propulsion. The J15s need wind over the deck to take-off. Therefore, remove the ability to launch aircraft, the Shandong becomes irrelevant.
Of course what would really help the UK carriers strike capability is a new and credible long range anti-ship missile which can be launched from the F-35 and RN surface ships/subs. It’s all well and good being able to stealth one’s way into denied access theatres but if you can’t sink the adversaries ships then what’s the point? The Chinese navy has plenty of options in this area at present.
There is some major issues with the Chinese carriers 001 and 002. One of which is their primary armament, the J15 knock-off. The Chinese managed to buy a prototype Su27/33. This was a test and development aircraft sold to them by Ukraine and as such had the original Su27 engines the AL31s. China also copied this engine and called it the WS10. The original AL31 engine had a number of key issues, one of which was it is quite slow to accelerate. As the Chinese copied the engine they also copied this weakness. It has been partially to blame for a number of J15 crashes. The other major issue is the metallurgy of the compressor, stator and turbine blades. The Chinese tried to copy these and failed and it is the biggest cause of engine failures within the domestic engine program, hence why they keep buying Russian engines.
It has been stated that the J15 has a greater power to weight ratio than the F18E/F, which may be true. But the aircraft can only launch with half full tanks, with a pair of short range missiles and a pair of medium range missiles. This is quite frankly pathetic when compared with what a normal Su27/33 can carry using a conventional take-off. There have been a number of pictures showing the J15 with a bridle attached to the nose gear. This modification to the aircraft has been tested with a the steam catapult and the EMALS they have on ashore. Apparently the EMALS isn’t performing as expected, which comes as no surprise, as the US Navy have plowed in millions trying to solve the problem and still haven’t come up with a solution yet.
An interesting fact about the land steam catapult. The catapult is a copy of the one that was fitted to HMAS Melbourne, the majestic class light carrier, that was supposed to have been sold to the Chinese to be turned in a hotel and casino (sound familiar by any chance?). The J15 has been successfully launched with a more realistic payload using the steam catapult.
So it will be interesting to see what they will use with the 003 “Supercarrier”. They know the steam catapult system works. Do they bite the bullet and play safe or like the US Navy go for the risky option with an unreliable EMALS?
India is also making progress. Their Tejas has made its first carrier landing https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WgcAQrTvs8g&time_continue=3&feature=emb_logo
The Indians are talking about a Super Tejas, basically a larger and twin engined version with canards. Looks a bit like a Typhoon/Rafale cross.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/01/11/indian-navy-hits-a-major-milestone-with-a-home-grown-experimental-jet
Cheers
A very good article – thanks. The Chinese are busily building a carrier capability which is quite impressive. You know I worry about some of the thinking in the RN. So we are going to lose Harpoon from the frigates and destroyers & have no anti-ship missile for the F35’s on the carriers. That leaves us with an anti-ship capability based upon short ranged helicopter mounted missiles, the 4.5inch Gun and iron bombs dropped from the F35. This, of course, doesn’t matter if we are using the carriers to prosecute a conflict against a third world power but if we ever come up against another fleet we will be in trouble. The idea that free fall bombs will get anywhere near opposition ships in the teeth of a modern SAM systems is crazy. Harpoon must be replaced as a matter of urgency, even if it means slowing other procurements. Going forward we need the carriers to deliver anti-shipping strike missions and this will mean procuring an F35 deliverable anti-ship missile with a very long range standoff capability to make up for the F35B;s lack of range.
The F35 won’t carry any dumb bombs. They are all smart weapons. The F35B will carry the Spear 3, which has a anti-ship capability. The F35 can carry 8 internally, plus another 8 under the wings when stealth isn’t required. The F35B on internal fuel still has double the range of the Harrier GR9 carry large external tanks. And far better performance.
Get your point. However even a swarm of Spear lightweight missiles isn’t going to sink a (Russian) cruiser. The F35B will need to have twice the range of the Harrier because the (Russian) cruiser will unleash a salvo of Granit or Vulcan missiles (not to mention their new hypersonic hardware) from 400 miles away. No a heavy air launched standoff missile is needed on the F35B if we are going to keep the enemy at arms reach.
The Spearfish torpedo could break the back of a Russian cruiser. And we are spending £270m upgrading our torpedoes. Anyway. You don’t have to sink a vessel to neutralise the threat. And I would take any talk of hypersonic missiles with a very large pinch of salt. They havent proven to anyone, to be able to actual hit anything with one. Let alone a modern western warship with sophisticated defensive aids.
You’d need to get one of our five operable subs close for a torpedo hit, good luck with that. If we are going to operate carrier battle groups they need to be able hold any possible adversary at great range through their offensive air power (the Americans know this and thus the LRASM).
Spearfish has a range of 80miles. One of our Astute boats would could make mince meat of any chinese vessels, otherwise what’s the point of having a fleet of £1 billion nuclear subs. Anyway, this is all very Tom Clancy stuff, China and the west has far to much to loose to enter any conflict with each other, there would have to be a massive diplomatic fall out, or a very large act of aggression for even limited military action to be considered. And as China is still only classed as a regional power, we aren’t going to see any Chinese carrier battle groups threatening us in our back yard anytime soon.
You don’t have to sink a ship, it actually takes very little to mission kill a war ship.being hit by 16 spear 3s will stop any ship on the planet doing what it was planning…that’s 16 100kg projectiles hitting at significant speed,
The kinetic energy alone is significant, add in 16 warheads that can be either breaching, shaped charge, or blast fragmention depending on damage needs and whatever fuel is left scattered around and burning and you have one very sick ship with 16 room sized burning holes where key compartments would have once been.
Then think what 4 f35# could deliver 64 missiles etc.
Modern ships are not the armoured warships of a bygone age, they don’t shrug of damage from smaller weapons…. Even ARM missiles exploding close by have been all it takes to mission kill a AAW cruiser (the us did it one one of their own ships).
This new Chinese aircraft carrier is such a welcome sight: large, expensive, vulnerable and of little tactical value. I hope they build more. They are a wonderful waste of money for China.
Remember folks..every time you buy a product with “Made in China” on it……
Mercantilism is alive and well, China has been practicing it on the west since the fall of the Soviet Union…..they realised western capitalism would always out compete communism, but that the rise of neoliberalism and the primacy of the markets meant that the west would allow itself to be destroyed if you could dominate and control key markets and that’s what China is doing. If you can produce it cheap a western nation will buy it even to the destruction of its own industries….how many time have I seen people on this site say….well if you can get it cheaper abroad…..
The main difference between the PLAN carriers & ours is that the PLAN has a large number of escorts & even if a missile or aircraft gets through, it has several layers of defensive weapons, wheras we have a tiny number of escorts & just Phalanx CIWS(not yet even fitted to the POW) & countermeasures to protect ours.
We really should protect our crews & investment better!
We buy from China. We give them foreign exchange, lots of it. – think about it.