- The interest in VSTOL aviation isn't only in the United States, and isn't simply a question of finding aircraft that can fly off big amphibs. Smaller navies have a) operated strike and air superiority Harriers from CVLs, and b) expressed an interest in the capabilities of the F-35B.
- Why wouldn't China be interested in developing an analogue to the Sea Control Ship? If China's chief maritime interests in the future will be the protection of supply lines from the Middle East, as well as projection of power and maintenance of maritime order in the Pacific island chains, wouldn't a Sea Control Ship fit the bill? Less expensive than a big CV, capable of being in more places, and more expendable in a conflict. As we know well, there are plenty of Americans arguing that we should focus on smaller, less risky carriers; why would it be a surprise to see the PLAN moving in this direction?
- While there's little indication thus far that the PLAN is building Sea Control Ships, is it necessarily true that we'd see evidence of carrier construction prior to the mastery of VSTOL technology? If the ships are dependent for effectiveness on a plausible VSTOL fighter/attack aircraft, then it might make sense to delay construction until development of the aircraft had sufficiently progressed.
More Feng's area of expertise than mine, really. We should be prepared, though, for the possibility that China's blue water navy won't be structured very much like our own blue water navy.
No comments:
Post a Comment