China's first indigenous carrier CV17

[Armand2REP]

wait.......Syria is far from Russia? remind me if India's current Russian carrier conducts cruise to distant ports.

Syria is quite far from the Northern Fleet, it has to cruise all the way around Europe to get there.

 

[smooth manifold]

Syria is quite far from the Northern Fleet, it has cruise all the way around Europe to get there.

what's your point? conventional carrier does global cruise? you may not know how costly the oil money is.

 

[Sridhar_TN]

what's your point? conventional carrier does global cruise? you may not know how costly the oil money is.

Uhhh….yeah!
conventional carrier a 100% does global cruise. That's what strategic interoperability pacts are signed between countries for.

 

[Armand2REP]

what's your point? conventional carrier does global cruise? you may not know how costly the oil money is.

Flagship's main job is to wave the flag. It is a form of soft power that brings fear to your enemies and confidence to your allies. It sways neutral parties on the fence to your side. The cost of fuel is not a concern, not for a country like China.

 

[smooth manifold]

Uhhh….yeah!
conventional carrier a 100% does global cruise. That's what strategic interoperability pacts are signed between countries for.

you can claim everything conventional carriers can do. but the question is can you afford that regularly? the annual cost of operating one carrier battle group is equivalent to the cost of new carrier. if you have enough money to launder, you can do that regularly.

 

[smooth manifold]

Flagship's main job is to wave the flag. It is a form of soft power that brings fear to your enemies and confidence to your allies. It sways neutral parties on the fence to your side. The cost of fuel is not a concern, not for a country like China.

on the surface, it's a showing off of military power. but in essence, it's a money game. Soviet Union tells you how you would end up if without a strong economy to support military. Soviet Union brought lots of fear to its enemies and had lots of allies. you see its good outcome.

 

[Armand2REP]

on the surface, it's a showing off of military power. but in essence, it's a money game. Soviet Union tells you how you would end up if without a strong economy to support military.

The main purpose of a military is not to use it. Showing the flag is a method of deterrence. The US has showed weakness in Syria pulling their flag and Turkey is now genociding Kurds and handing control to Russia. This is what happens when you don't promote your power.

 

[smooth manifold]

The main purpose of a military is not to use it. Showing the flag is a method of deterrence. The US has showed weakness in Syria pulling their flag and Turkey is now genociding Kurds and handing control to Russia. This is what happens when you don't promote your power.

I think it's a correct strategy. Trump knows well he needs to save US economy. that's more important than promoting some distant power. What has US's decades presence in Middle East brought for American people? I don't get it. It wasted billions of money. they delayed their moon return project and domestic poverty is on the rise. it's time to retreat. if Russia and Turkey have the money to play, let them play. suppose US is dragged into another Middle East conflict like US-Iran war and promotes its power as you said. guess who's gonna benefit?

 

[Sridhar_TN]

you can claim everything conventional carriers can do. but the question is can you afford that regularly? the annual cost of operating one carrier battle group is equivalent to the cost of new carrier. if you have enough money to launder, you can do that regularly.

don’t you think that is taken into context by the respective navy before operating a conventional carrier? Your reasoning sounds redundant.

the question is can you have a true blue water navy with a conventional powered carrier. A answer is yes, provided the cost breakdown is factored in.

It also depends on, What the objectives are for so and so navy that wants to opaerate the carrier. For the Indian navy, it’s simple: their area of operation would be limited to the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and the South China Sea. Is the cost of operating in this region acceptable? Depends.

For China , that’s also the objectives of the Chinese navy. I’m sure they want force projection all over the world. Hence is it viable for operating a conventional one? With all the nava portsl that China has leased/duped from different countries, you think the gas bill is that much of a problem for China? Lol.

having the infrastructure to refuel and res up ply all over the world is way more valuable that fuel bills lol

 

[smooth manifold]

don’t you think that is taken into context by the respective navy before operating a conventional carrier? Your reasoning sounds redundant.

the question is can you have a true blue water navy with a conventional powered carrier. A answer is yes, provided the cost breakdown is factored in.

It also depends on, What the objectives are for so and so navy that wants to opaerate the carrier. For the Indian navy, it’s simple: their area of operation would be limited to the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and the South China Sea. Is the cost of operating in this region acceptable? Depends.

For China , that’s also the objectives of the Chinese navy. I’m sure they want force projection all over the world. Hence is it viable for operating a conventional one? With all the nava portsl that China has leased/duped from different countries, you think the gas bill is that much of a problem for China? Lol.

having the infrastructure to refuel and res up ply all over the world is way more valuable that fuel bills lol

you have no idea how expensive these puppies are. It must suit your economic strength. it's not only about gas bill. it's the total annual cost. you think one can rule the world with a dozen carriers? that's funny. why don't you build a million tanks or pump 30% of your GDP into your military like Soviet Union so you can have the most powerful ground force? can you afford that? why doesn't US build 100 supercarriers to have a complete grip of the world? Can the US economy afford that?

 

[Sridhar_TN]

you have no idea how expensive these puppies are. It must suit your economic strength. it's not only about gas bill. it's the total annual cost. you think one can rule the world with a dozen carriers? that's funny. why don't you build a million tanks or pump 30% of your GDP into your military like Soviet Union so you can have the most powerful ground force? can you afford that? why doesn't US build 100 supercarriers to have a complete grip of the world? Can the US economy afford that?

Guy. You’re taking this way out of context repeatedly. Who the fack said anything about ruling the world? Question is : CAN YOU OPERATE A CONVENTIONAL CARRIER ON A GLOBAL LEVEL? Answer is : MOST CERTAINLY YES. Is it expensive? YES. Is it worth it? DEPENDS ON THE NAVY’S OBJECTIVE AND RESOURCE.
The United States operated numerous conventional carriers well into the 2000’s.

I don’t have a fricking clue why you started blurting out about ruling the world and all that shit. Stick to the point of the discussion guy (P.S. Force projection at any part of the globe != ruling the world)​

 

[smooth manifold]

Guy. You’re taking this way out of context repeatedly. Who the fack said anything about ruling the world? Question is : CAN YOU OPERATE A CONVENTIONAL CARRIER ON A GLOBAL LEVEL? Answer is : MOST CERTAINLY YES. Is it expensive? YES. Is it worth it? DEPENDS ON THE NAVY’S OBJECTIVE AND RESOURCE.
The United States operated numerous conventional carriers well into the 2000’s.

I don’t have a fricking clue why you started blurting out about ruling the world and all that shit. Stick to the point of the discussion guy (P.S. Force projection at any part of the globe != ruling the world)​

tell me which current conventional carrier is operated on a global level? that Russian carrier? US operated numerous conventional carriers because they have the money. that's my point.

 

[Armand2REP]

tell me which current conventional carrier is operated on a global level? that Russian carrier?

The British carriers are conventional, the America class is conventional... why would that stop them from operating globally?

 

[Sridhar_TN]

tell me which current conventional carrier is operated on a global level? that Russian carrier?

now why are you asking a different question? I’m not Wikipedia man.
The answer to your question is ‘I don’t know’.

India operates one currently and is set to operate another conventionally powered.

The jolly old British navy’s newest and latest HMS Queen ELIZABETH is conventionally powered too.
You still think conventional carriers are so abhorrently expensive that nobody can operate them?

 

[smooth manifold]

The British carriers are conventional, the America class is conventional... why would that stop them from operating globally?

I already said it's about the money.

 

[smooth manifold]

now why are you asking a different question? I’m not Wikipedia man.
The answer to your question is ‘I don’t know’.

India operates one currently and is set to operate another conventionally powered.

The jolly old British navy’s newest and latest HMS Queen ELIZABETH is conventionally powered too.
You still think conventional carriers are so abhorrently expensive that nobody can operate them?

you know the difference between you and british? India and Britain have the same economic strength(at least in terms of GDP but the quality gap is huge). what stops you from operating your carriers globally?

 

[Sridhar_TN]

I already said it's about the money.

If ‘money’ would stop the brits from operating them globally, they would have built a nuclear one. Again, go through my answer to you before regarding the capabilities and resources that each country have in terms of infrastructure.
You’re so concerned about the money that you don’t analyze the rationale behind operating different classes of carriers. Here’s a great link to go through for a tactical analysis of operating a conventional carrier:
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-queen-elizabeth-is-not-nuclear-powered/

cheers

 

[Sridhar_TN]

you know the difference between you and british? India and Britain have the same economic strength(at least in terms of GDP, let alone the quality gap is huge). what stops you from operating your carriers globally?

Now you’ve got a totally different question. You keep trying to change the topic.
As For your question, which I’ve already provided an answer: NAVAL PRIORITIES AND GOALS. We don’t give a fuck about operating globally my guy. (Side note: when you say we have the same gdp, you ever heard of per capita? The gdp match doesn’t matter as long as we have such a huuuuge population difference)

 

[smooth manifold]

Now you’ve got a totally different question. You keep trying to change the topic.
As For your question, which I’ve already provided an answer: NAVAL PRIORITIES AND GOALS. We don’t give a fuck about operating globally my guy.

Whereas you want to but you can’t because you don’t have the space or bandwidth to do so without all the navies in the region ganging up on you. Lol, and YOU GUYS don’t talk about quality my man. Just dont. Unless you’re trying to be sarcastic. . In which case it’s quite funny

what's your point? you're mentioning UK's conventional carrier operating globally. I never deny this. i don't believe their budget is so tight as indian navy. my point is clear. your navy budget can not support your global cruise regularly. it'll be huge financial drain to your other civilian projects. that's why you don't do that. it's all about money.

 

[Sridhar_TN]

what's your point? you're mentioning UK's conventional carrier operating globally. I never deny this. i don't believe their budget is so tight as indian navy. my point is clear. your navy budget can not support your global cruise regularly. it'll be huge financial drain to your other civilian projects. that's why you don't do that. it's all about money.

My man, your answer shows that you have astonishingly not understood anything being said to you. The Indian Navy does ‘ not care’ about force projection beyond its immediate neighborhood. For now. Which is why they’re going for conventional carriers.
Even if the IN wanted to project power somewhere far, they could still do so. Do you even know how expensive it is to maintain a nuclear carrier? Astronomical.
You assume that operating a conventional carrier is prohibitively costly. It’s not. If you still argue it is, then prove it and back it up with facts and figures.
End of discussion.
(the link I sent You provided a good reasoning for cost benefits of conventional power. Go through it before replying again.)
Peace