China's first aircraft carrier

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13705204

This is not totally unexpected by me or most navy folk. The Chinese have been making noises about 'matching' the US and others in the naval arena. They bought like a half dozen subs back around the time they bought this ship. Three of which went straight into dry dock and were cut up to learn how to build them. I imagine the shipyard that finished this carrier will be laying another keel within two years and the projected four more will be done by the time frame the video stated.

Why is this a concern? Sea power of their allies was the only thing securing the freedom of Taiwan. I got to sit off the cost of China in 96 and listen to how they (China) were going to put us to the bottom of the ocean if we didn't leave. Then they couldn't realistically do it. Now? Possibly.

Come 2020s, very possible. China is building a naval force, and what do you want to bet the first action of this new navy they are building will be the 'recovery' of their 'rogue province' of Taiwan? I'll say this. I'm willing to bet by 2025 they will be demanding 'reconcilation' or move to 'restore home rule' in Taiwan.

[Genbu83]

I agree.

Though my major concerns with China are econmical. A trade war is more likely than all out war. concerning the sate os the US and China's economic codependincy and how poloticians in both countries are working against it....it will make for an interesting decade.

That's just my two cents as a political scientist.

[Zakharra]

 I think the Chinese government would be wiling to take an economic hit in exchange for getting Taiwan back. Despite how much they might be dependent on the US for trade, they want Taiwan back even more. And as soon as they think they can take and hold it, they will do it.

[RubySlippers]

We still have one trump card we can nuke China into utter oblivion if we had to, pretty good as a counter to their superior numbers.

Mutually Assured Destruction is a good strategy the sheer terror of a full scale nuclear war prevents major powers from direct military engagement, so I think its unlikely they would risk it with our defense obligations in place.

[Oniya]

You do realize that the tactic of 'Nuke 'em till they glow' went out during the Reagan era, right?

Tom Lehrer - The MLF Lullaby - with intro - now on DVD

[Callie Del Noire]

You keep forgetting the second stick they have on the US. They are easily the biggest undeveloped market in the world AND the biggest holder of treasury bonds. The Chinese could guite easily destroy the US economy by cashing out.

Let's face it, China is a growing economic and political power, and the US is losing ground to them. This isn't a good/bad thing. The issues China has while coming into this position is a troublesome issue though. Like the growing gender disparity in China. Estimates as high as 5 and 6 to 1 in relation to male/female splits in some regions in the next twenty years will bring unique social stress in China. Issues that WILL effect what China does to keep their citizens from causing trouble.

[Missy]

I have an exceedingly low opinion of the PRC so I don't like this.

I swear to god, I'm gonna kick congress ass if they can't get their act into gear. And if it means Taiwan losses it's freedom from Communists then I'll do a lot more than that.

[Callie Del Noire]

I have an exceedingly low opinion of the PRC so I don't like this.

I swear to god, I'm gonna kick congress ass if they can't get their act into gear. And if it means Taiwan losses it's freedom from Communists then I'll do a lot more than that.

I hate to say it but unless something RADICALLY changes in the near future, it's going to happen. How many countries have formally recognized Taiwan. Damn few. And the Unite States isn't one of them, neither is the UK, France, German or most of the EU. Not one of them wants to get in a diplomatic feud with the leadership in China. The Peoples Republic isn't a true communist state, not any more. I'm willing to bet that they (the Party leadership in power) will do a hell of a lot to stay in power. Communism isn't what they believe in but pragmatism. If there is a reason to keep them from 'recovering' Taiwan, they will. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time.  Right now it comes down to how to take the 'rogue province' with as little loss of potential materials, revenues and such. Note that I never once said anything about loss of life. I think that the ruling party would happily kill everyone in the country of Taiwan if they could recover everything intact.

Notice, I said the LEADERSHIP would.. not the average layman.

[Missy]

I hate to say it but unless something RADICALLY changes in the near future, it's going to happen. How many countries have formally recognized Taiwan. Damn few. And the Unite States isn't one of them, neither is the UK, France, German or most of the EU. Not one of them wants to get in a diplomatic feud with the leadership in China. The Peoples Republic isn't a true communist state, not any more. I'm willing to bet that they (the Party leadership in power) will do a hell of a lot to stay in power. Communism isn't what they believe in but pragmatism. If there is a reason to keep them from 'recovering' Taiwan, they will. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time.  Right now it comes down to how to take the 'rogue province' with as little loss of potential materials, revenues and such. Note that I never once said anything about loss of life. I think that the ruling party would happily kill everyone in the country of Taiwan if they could recover everything intact.

Notice, I said the LEADERSHIP would.. not the average layman.

Some of my good friends have been Chinese, I have nothing against the "average layman" they just have the misfortune of being born into a country which was manipulated into putting that sick regime into power some decades ago.

A regimes whose history and current activities are a testament to its perversion and ineffectiveness as a state.

I have strong feelings against any body which would do anything to retain it's power.

[MagicalPen]

No need to worry about the Chinese guys, everyone knows the world ends in December of 2012!

And, to play the devils advocate, how is what they are doing any different then what the US has done? "Oh, lets stick our military might in the affairs of other countries and take over land that isn't really ours or secure some more assets" etc. Its just a little bit ironic when you really think about what the Chinese may plan on doing and compare it to what the US has done (and what the British did before them, and the Spanish before them, and the Portuguese before them and...)

[Callie Del Noire]

No need to worry about the Chinese guys, everyone knows the world ends in December of 2012!

And, to play the devils advocate, how is what they are doing any different then what the US has done? "Oh, lets stick our military might in the affairs of other countries and take over land that isn't really ours or secure some more assets" etc. Its just a little bit ironic when you really think about what the Chinese may plan on doing and compare it to what the US has done (and what the British did before them, and the Spanish before them, and the Portuguese before them and...)

For one thing, like I said early, they are the biggest undeveloped growing market place in the world. Chinese markets are highly regulated and controlled and only now are the desire/need/wants of their consumers coming up. The leadership controls access to that market, look at the things microsoft/google/yahoo did to get their browsers past the Great Firewall.

Another thing. Care to guess who is one of the major manufacturing units in China? The military. They build a LOT of their own things. They are a major industry.

[Zeitgeist]

It's 2011 and they are just now building their first aircraft carrier.

Considering the number of carriers we have, our experience with them, and the fact we've had them since prior to the outset of WWII (Or more specifically prior to the events of Pearl Harbor), I don't find this the least bit concerning.

Sure, they aren't starting from scratch, and their learning curve is relative to the times, but still, I can't bring myself to be terribly concerned.

[Callie Del Noire]

It's 2011 and they are just now building their first aircraft carrier.

Considering the number of carriers we have, our experience with them, and the fact we've had them since prior to the outset of WWII (Or more specifically prior to the events of Pearl Harbor), I don't find this the least bit concerning.

Sure, they aren't starting from scratch, and their learning curve is relative to the times, but still, I can't bring myself to be terribly concerned.

Okay, let's look at it like this Zamdrist.

In the next TEN years, they are projecting that the Chinese will have FOUR more. Two conventional carriers and the other two are nuclear.

In the next FIFTEEN we're projected to have TWO more. Period. Maybe. At the same time the downsizing initiatives started by my least favorite Secetrary of Defense will continue to downsize the navy in ways that will impeded us maintaining the carriers we have. Our military substainment has decreased every year I was in service. The number of 'blue shirt' enlisted were thinned everyway they could without getting rid of senior enlisted. High Year tenure for ALL ratings has dropped. When I got in, an E-4 had 12 years before being mustered out and an E-5 had a full 20. Now, E-4s have ten. That means if you screw up and loose a rank or pick a rating with a horrible promotion (some advancement rates were as low as 2% or lower), you're out on your ear.

An E-5 is the 'front line' supervisor type. Depending on the rating and your actual job, it can take five or six years to build the experience to do your job properly. You got 14 years to move past it now. And some ratings at the E-5 rank have a MINUTE percentage of advancement.

We're experiencing a 'brain drain'. I was told while I was in that ASW (Anti-Submarine/Surface Warface) was an 'obsolete' field the whole time in the navy. While China was buying up every diesel they could get and folks like North Korea were learning to use theirs. Just because the Iranians are incompotent doesn't mean people who can afford to buy training from the former Soviet Unions are.

The Chinese, unlike our own idiotic leaders, are taking a long view. They are looking into fast strike missiles, subs, carriers and fighters designed for anti-ship warfare. In ten years they'll have around five to six carriers, a whole new branch of their aviation wing, a sub-surface force that has been training in counter detection tactics for nearly twenty years, and a 'swarm' tactic that is designed to overwhelm current missile defense systems that the US Navy uses.

They also have the advantage of the best sonar maps of the Pacific courtesy of the National Oceanographic people here in the US. They BOUGHT them. Just like the Russians did in the end days of the cold war.

You might be right in thinking that our forces right now won't have to worry but ten or fifteenth years down the road?

Fun note, another 'minor naval' power in the Pacific had the same question for two decades during the 20th century for their Naval Academy.

"How would you attack Pearl Harbor?"

Planning and time in our austere time is making it easier for the Chinese to catch up. And they plan to win and aren't afraid of the long view.

[Zeitgeist]

Callie - I don't disagree with the long-term viewpoint. A lot can happen in 15 years, hell a lot can happen in just 5. There are a lot of arguments for the love view concern, but it's largely conjecture.

Though China is obviously a far older nation than any in the West, does it have the same breadth of naval tradition and experience?

Just saying, they have A LOT of catching up to do, and given their birth policies, and elder traditions, this complicates the make-up of their forces.

I most certainly wouldn't get into a ground war with them. That would just be stupid. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Callie - I don't disagree with the long-term viewpoint. A lot can happen in 15 years, hell a lot can happen in just 5. There are a lot of arguments for the love view concern, but it's largely conjecture.

Though China is obviously a far older nation than any in the West, does it have the same breadth of naval tradition and experience?

Just saying, they have A LOT of catching up to do, and given their birth policies, and elder traditions, this complicates the make-up of their forces.

I most certainly wouldn't get into a ground war with them. That would just be stupid.

If I may.. the Japanese had LESS Naval tradition/experience at the beginning of the 20th century..and a mere 30 years BEFORE the beginning of the 20th Century they had NO Industrial complex to speak of. In a mere 50 years, Japan went from being Perry's whipping boy to one of the Naval powers of the world.

I see China at the point where Japan was when they stomped on the Russians. And the Chinese have one perk we don't. An excess of men in the coming decades. Projections put some provinces as high as 6 men to 1 woman. That's a LOT of manpower to redirect elsewhere. The Chinese have a LOT of headway the Japanese didnt' have. Decades of industrial development, a MASSIVE glut of manpower and resources beyond anything the Japanese had leading up to the 2nd World War. Not to mention economic leverage on the US in the simple fact of being the biggest foreign holder of American Bonds. Period.

They also have a massive program of electronic warfare that puts them in the top tier just below the US in cyber capacity and I think its' fair to say they are AHEAD of the US actual practice. They have infrastructure and a plan and unlike the US, resolve and focus.

Without a radical change in outlook and policy, the US will continue to show it's belly till it's too late. Too many folks seem to think that we don't need to worry about anything past our borders and that the military is unneeded with the end of the Cold War.

That was the same sort of short sided outlook that had us standing there with our hat in our hands when the Japanese fleet bombed Pearl Harbor.

Overseas, the US is FAMOUS for being short sided and not thinking things through in areas like this.

[Zeitgeist]

And the Chinese have one perk we don't. An excess of men in the coming decades. Projections put some provinces as high as 6 men to 1 woman. That's a LOT of manpower to redirect elsewhere

I've been led to believe from sources that in China it is the oldest son's responsibility to look after the elder members of the family. It is apparently a deeply entrenched tradition, and the Chinese are all about tradition. This is significant when it comes to contemplating a conflict with a near peer like the US. China's population likely wouldn't suffer sending off their men to war, not readily. That at least is the theory.

I hear you though, it's quite clear there is a seismic shift in global power creeping up on us all. China, more and more has overseas resources like oil in Africa, and South America it needs to protect, or at least be prepared to protect if it is going to continue to fuel their economic growth.   

[RubySlippers]

You keep forgetting the second stick they have on the US. They are easily the biggest undeveloped market in the world AND the biggest holder of treasury bonds. The Chinese could guite easily destroy the US economy by cashing out.

Let's face it, China is a growing economic and political power, and the US is losing ground to them. This isn't a good/bad thing. The issues China has while coming into this position is a troublesome issue though. Like the growing gender disparity in China. Estimates as high as 5 and 6 to 1 in relation to male/female splits in some regions in the next twenty years will bring unique social stress in China. Issues that WILL effect what China does to keep their citizens from causing trouble.

Let them, we can just hunker into the USA rationing essentials and we can easily feed and house and provide for our citizens for many years if in a more spartan way. Can China?

Personally I like them having carriers the only reason people in need for action come to us is our deployment of might by carrier battlegroup if China can do that we can ask them to go to hot spots like Libya and we can stay out of these situations. Let them bleed for a change.

[Callie Del Noire]

Let them, we can just hunker into the USA rationing essentials and we can easily feed and house and provide for our citizens for many years if in a more spartan way. Can China?

Personally I like them having carriers the only reason people in need for action come to us is our deployment of might by carrier battlegroup if China can do that we can ask them to go to hot spots like Libya and we can stay out of these situations. Let them bleed for a change.

Won't happen. The way the government does things today, they couldn't ration material if they wanted to. No way. Too many companies would be against it for one.  Too many money men in Washington would kill that bill before the ink was dry on the draft.

Two. The public wouldn't go for it. This isn't the 1940s where we were coming out of one of the most severe periods of austerity and financial scarcity in history, though we are in similar straights today. No one could sell the public on rationing gasoline, food, and materials.

And the Chinese can won't lose as much in the standard of living as we do.

If it comes down to one side being more cruel to their citizens for the sake of their citizens, we'll lose.

[Zakharra]

Let them, we can just hunker into the USA rationing essentials and we can easily feed and house and provide for our citizens for many years if in a more spartan way. Can China?

Personally I like them having carriers the only reason people in need for action come to us is our deployment of might by carrier battlegroup if China can do that we can ask them to go to hot spots like Libya and we can stay out of these situations. Let them bleed for a change.

Actually we cannot. We do not have anywhere near the oil resources needed to sustain ourselves and to cut ourselves off as you're suggesting would have a massive impact on the US economy. As Callie  said above, the US public and corporations would not stand for that sort of rationing.

Plus the Chinese military would be there to protect Chinese interests, not necessarily for peace and prosperity. They'd be willing to bleed, only for their own national interests.  The Chinese navy is building up and preparing to be able to take on and defeat one foe. The US Navy. Right now we are the only thing stopping China from stomping Taiwan into the dirt.

Besides, when have the chinese ever really cared for what the world thinks of it's actions?

[Callie Del Noire]

Besides, when have the chinese ever really cared for what the world thinks of it's actions?

I can answer that..



And they learned from that experience. I very much doubt protests would get as far as they did then. Or out of the country as fast.

[Vekseid]

You keep forgetting the second stick they have on the US. They are easily the biggest undeveloped market in the world AND the biggest holder of treasury bonds. The Chinese could guite easily destroy the US economy by cashing out.

This is a myth.

Last year China cashed out on a bunch of US securities, briefly letting Japan tie it for holdings. Yields went down.

It's basically an unloaded water pistol.

It's 2011 and they are just now building their first aircraft carrier.

Considering the number of carriers we have, our experience with them, and the fact we've had them since prior to the outset of WWII (Or more specifically prior to the events of Pearl Harbor), I don't find this the least bit concerning.

Sure, they aren't starting from scratch, and their learning curve is relative to the times, but still, I can't bring myself to be terribly concerned.

Yes, let's rest on our laurels some more. Like when China abandoned its colonial aspirations.

China would have no trouble making a WWII-era aircraft carriers. That's a ridiculous comparison - to have an aircraft carrier with a prayer of standing against an American one, you need something that can launch jets. A seventy-year old carrier is not going to launch a modern jet.

In addition to this, it's not that China wants to face America on US soil. China wants to be able to face America on 'it's own' soil - Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Japan. It's not sufficient for us to match them.

[Callie Del Noire]

This is a myth.

Last year China cashed out on a bunch of US securities, briefly letting Japan tie it for holdings. Yields went down.

It's basically an unloaded water pistol.

Yes, let's rest on our laurels some more. Like when China abandoned its colonial aspirations.

China would have no trouble making a WWII-era aircraft carriers. That's a ridiculous comparison - to have an aircraft carrier with a prayer of standing against an American one, you need something that can launch jets. A seventy-year old carrier is not going to launch a modern jet.

In addition to this, it's not that China wants to face America on US soil. China wants to be able to face America on 'it's own' soil - Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Japan. It's not sufficient for us to match them.

Thank you for the correction Veks. I will confess to being a little out of touch with the securities side. I can appreciate the correction.

You left out the Philipines by the way, China and them have some 'disputes' on some islands.

If you look at 'China's backyard' they are basically using the 'Co-prosperity Sphere' that the Japanese were trying to claim during WWII.  There are two BIG differences.

1. They have the materials and manpower to build the machine to rule it.
2. They understand how to learn from history, unlike the US apparently.

My opinion is the Chinese will be doing an 'influence' grab in the next two decades in most of Asia. They want to be the 'look to' guy. When they have most of the region agreeing with them, Taiwan is done. If they think they can get away with it..they might try to 'annex' parts of the lands to the north of them that used to be the Soviet Union.

Siberia and such are some of the most undeveloped mineral stockpiles in the world. Climate is the big issue in tapping it, if China thinks they can take it..they will.

[Inkidu]

This is a myth.

Last year China cashed out on a bunch of US securities, briefly letting Japan tie it for holdings. Yields went down.

It's basically an unloaded water pistol.

Yes, let's rest on our laurels some more. Like when China abandoned its colonial aspirations.

China would have no trouble making a WWII-era aircraft carriers. That's a ridiculous comparison - to have an aircraft carrier with a prayer of standing against an American one, you need something that can launch jets. A seventy-year old carrier is not going to launch a modern jet.

In addition to this, it's not that China wants to face America on US soil. China wants to be able to face America on 'it's own' soil - Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Japan. It's not sufficient for us to match them.

I think we have better missiles now. An AEGIS cruiser probably packs enough punch to wipe the carrier off the water without ever seeing it. Yes, anit-missile defenses exist but they're not 100% effective. I might be wrong, but I'll ask my brother who was an admiral's aid and now a Lt. Commander. He'd probably have some idea.

[Bayushi]

China would have no trouble making a WWII-era aircraft carriers. That's a ridiculous comparison - to have an aircraft carrier with a prayer of standing against an American one, you need something that can launch jets. A seventy-year old carrier is not going to launch a modern jet.

Actually, the United States has at least one seventy-year old Aircraft carrier (or nearing 70) capable of launching modern jets.

It's currently decommissioned and acting as a museum in San Diego.

http://www.midway.org/

The USS Midway (CV-41) was laid in 1942, and commissioned in 1945. It served in the Korean, Vietnam, and Desert Storm conflicts until being decomissioned in 1997. It was one of the last conventional-power driven Aircraft carriers in the US Navy.

As an aside, my father served on the Midway in the 1980s and 90s, and I myself have been aboard her several times (twice while at sea during "Tiger Cruises", when the Navy started letting girls attend).

We also have a significant number of modernized (but mothballed) conventional-power driven carriers, in case we are pulled into a naval war. Carriers such as the Kitty Hawk, Constellation, America, and John F. Kennedy.

So we are in good standing to be able to repel a Chinese naval assault, though it won't be bloodless for us, either. Callie is right to be concerned, considering our nation's dire economic situation right now (which could be extended if the voters don't clean congress out some more, and change tenancy in the White House in next years election).

Matters like these are exactly why I could not, in good conscience, vote for Ron Paul. His view on closing down all overseas American military installations is short-sighted and overall a bad choice. We're in those countries for good reasons, obviously, or we wouldn't still be there.

I think we have better missiles now. An AEGIS cruiser probably packs enough punch to wipe the carrier off the water without ever seeing it. Yes, anit-missile defenses exist but they're not 100% effective. I might be wrong, but I'll ask my brother who was an admiral's aid and now a Lt. Commander. He'd probably have some idea.

Aegis-equipped Cruisers and Destroyers are not necessarily equipped for attacking/assaulting an enemy Aircraft carrier. The Aegis Combat System is intended to shoot down enemy aircraft, using SM2 surface to air missiles. Yes, it is also used to guide and track outgoing anti-surface missiles, but its primary goal is to protect the battle group the Aegis-equipped vessel is in. Not all Aegis-equipped vessels carry Tomahawks, though there "should" (though with our current administration, not likely) be a rapid procurement of the new Rail Gun batteries for Cruisers and Destroyers, soon. That alone would keep the Chinese surface fleet at a sufficient distance.

[Inkidu]

No, what I was saying was an AEGIS has enough missiles (or could be loaded with enough) to sink an aircraft carrier by itself. I know they're used mainly on an AA role (my other brother in the navy who used to be a marine maintained the Tomahawk missiles.  The days of carrier-to-carrier combat are over. I think one of those new Raptor fighters equipped with right missiles could sink whatever China produced carrier-wise without ever have the Mark 1 Eyeball take a look at it. Heck, if the air force is feeling in a humorous mood they could just load up a carrier full of predator drones and probably sink it.

You wouldn't even need rail guns to keep China at bay (as cool as that is) we have enough smart tech that if China tried to steam or fly across the Pacific I doubt any Chinese soldier would ever set foot in California or even Alaska. Actually, I don't think you even need a jet. In a modern war air and technological superiority are what give a nation the edge, naval superiority not so much anymore, and China has none of these. I think it's a bluster move to get the U.N. worried about Taiwan again.