China's first aircraft carrier

Started by Callie Del Noire, August 10, 2011, 01:01:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Callie Del Noire

#5
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

Quote from: MCsc on August 10, 2011, 03:20:11 PM
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

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on August 10, 2011, 03:43:09 PM
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...)

My On and Offs
When the Ink Runs Dry

Looking/Available for New Games

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Eeyore on August 10, 2011, 10:16:29 PM
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

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on August 11, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
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

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on August 11, 2011, 07:33:32 PM
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

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on August 11, 2011, 07:47:10 PM
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

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on August 10, 2011, 01:28:56 PM
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

Quote from: RubySlippers on August 11, 2011, 08:48:32 PM
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

Quote from: RubySlippers on August 11, 2011, 08:48:32 PM
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

Quote from: Zakharra on August 11, 2011, 09:06:59 PM

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

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on August 10, 2011, 01:28:56 PM
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.

Quote from: Zamdrist of Zeitgeist on August 11, 2011, 06:45:27 PM
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

Quote from: Vekseid on August 12, 2011, 07:27:36 PM
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

Quote from: Vekseid on August 12, 2011, 07:27:36 PM
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.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Bayushi

Quote from: Vekseid on August 12, 2011, 07:27:36 PMChina 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.
Quote from: Inkidu on August 12, 2011, 08:24:23 PMI 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.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Bayushi

Quote from: Inkidu on August 13, 2011, 06:03:07 AMI think it's a bluster move to get the U.N. worried about Taiwan again.
Quite likely. China seems to be taking the same route that the DPRK has been for the past twenty or so years... act tough, flex muscles, say crazy shit, then get concessions from the UN (ie from the US) in order to be restrained.

To be honest, I sincerely doubt that China will be willing to have a go at Taiwan, considering our defense compact with Taiwan, and our military's close proximity in South Korea and Japan both. I am also sure they realize that we could sink their carrier before it could leave the dock, quite easily in fact.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Akiko on August 13, 2011, 07:18:17 AM
Quite likely. China seems to be taking the same route that the DPRK has been for the past twenty or so years... act tough, flex muscles, say crazy shit, then get concessions from the UN (ie from the US) in order to be restrained.

To be honest, I sincerely doubt that China will be willing to have a go at Taiwan, considering our defense compact with Taiwan, and our military's close proximity in South Korea and Japan both. I am also sure they realize that we could sink their carrier before it could leave the dock, quite easily in fact.

Care to bet that with the continued down sizing that we will be pulling out of Japan and Korea? Our 'Two and half war' fleet hasn't been able to cover that much in the last twenty years. Thanks to 'right sizing' (what a crock) we couldn't provide much to Korea, navy wise (or any military wise) if things go south. The only reason that North Korea hasn't acted is that they aren't sure of China.

Kim il gets a 'we aren't going to be involved' from Cina and thinks he can hold us out of it for a reasonable time, he'd make a move. Thing is, China is involved and he isn't sure we aren't over committed elsewhere yet.

Zakharra

Quote from: Akiko on August 13, 2011, 07:18:17 AM
To be honest, I sincerely doubt that China will be willing to have a go at Taiwan, considering our defense compact with Taiwan, and our military's close proximity in South Korea and Japan both. I am also sure they realize that we could sink their carrier before it could leave the dock, quite easily in fact.

If they think they can take it, they will. The Chinese navy is gearing up to take on and defeat the US Navy.  They are already playing games with our ships and submarines with their ships and subs. 

Taiwan is just less than a 100 miles from mainland China. The Chinese could fly in military units fairly easily. They do not necessarily need ships, but ships let them bring in much heavier equipment. It's only a short hop to Taiwan and that's all they need.

Missy

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on August 13, 2011, 09:26:53 AM
Care to bet that with the continued down sizing that we will be pulling out of Japan and Korea? Our 'Two and half war' fleet hasn't been able to cover that much in the last twenty years. Thanks to 'right sizing' (what a crock) we couldn't provide much to Korea, navy wise (or any military wise) if things go south. The only reason that North Korea hasn't acted is that they aren't sure of China.

Kim il gets a 'we aren't going to be involved' from Cina and thinks he can hold us out of it for a reasonable time, he'd make a move. Thing is, China is involved and he isn't sure we aren't over committed elsewhere yet.

I agree, I mean did our politicians learn nothing from the second world war? Sure we beat the Japanese, but we had to move our entire naval fleet around the entire new world to get there.

We absolutely must have a large military, not because we should intervene in every little dispute anyone has, but so that we can offer assistance and protection to weaker nations. So that we can continue to push forth an agenda of freedom, for the long term.

Callie Del Noire

Think about this, 20 years ago when we were finishing up in the First Gulf war (or perhaps 5 years prior to it), we have enough manpower in the fleet (and the carrier battle groups) that we could have supported our current efforts in the Gulf with a few for workups and relief efforts AND enough to position a group along the coast of Somalia, freeing up the coast guard to do work here in the US that is needed.

The pirates would have had a great bit of effort working their area with long range surveillance from E-2s and S-3 aircraft that were designed for Air/Surface Control and aircraft like the F-18/F-14 doing surface control and FFG (Fast Frigates/Guide Missiles) doing long range patrol/interdiction.

Commercial Surface Traffic has something similar to IFF, so it would be quite easy for the Carrier Group to track everything within the several thousand square miles they could monitor.

The Problem today?

We don't have a Carrier Group to spare. (In fact given our current obligations around the world, I'd say we are about 2 down to allow for rotation, down time for maintenance and retraining cycles. A carrier group is an ENORMOUS undertaking in training and upkeep).

Too long we've waved the 'stay at home and save' flag.

We as a country, along with our allies, have made some major policy mistakes. Most of them usually entail not finishing what we start.


RubySlippers

Quote from: MCsc on August 13, 2011, 03:03:44 PM
I agree, I mean did our politicians learn nothing from the second world war? Sure we beat the Japanese, but we had to move our entire naval fleet around the entire new world to get there.

We absolutely must have a large military, not because we should intervene in every little dispute anyone has, but so that we can offer assistance and protection to weaker nations. So that we can continue to push forth an agenda of freedom, for the long term.

That is not our problem and why should we do it all, China is a member of the Permanent Security Council with Russia, England, Frand and the United States. Let China build carrier battle groups if they want and we can then expect them to act as a military asset to the UN taking some of the burden off of the USA.

So I think we should be backing China with five carrier groups they can be an asset in these missions of yours I for one am sick of being the global police for the UN, they can find someone else now who would take up the call to arms for some third world nation or to do relief efforts.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: RubySlippers on August 13, 2011, 08:52:24 PM
That is not our problem and why should we do it all, China is a member of the Permanent Security Council with Russia, England, Frand and the United States. Let China build carrier battle groups if they want and we can then expect them to act as a military asset to the UN taking some of the burden off of the USA.

So I think we should be backing China with five carrier groups they can be an asset in these missions of yours I for one am sick of being the global police for the UN, they can find someone else now who would take up the call to arms for some third world nation or to do relief efforts.

So, we back off and let China take the slack and they come in and quash the problem like they do at home, put a pro-china regime in place and general set things up to their liking? Not too bright given a LOT of the areas with problems now are potential resource suppliers. So, let me see if I got it right, you don't see any problem in letting the biggest growing world power set up things to further their agenda, roll over human rights and general build a new generation of client states?

Good way to restart the cold war, which wasn't a bright move the first time.

Missy

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on August 13, 2011, 09:13:49 PM
So, we back off and let China take the slack and they come in and quash the problem like they do at home, put a pro-china regime in place and general set things up to their liking? Not too bright given a LOT of the areas with problems now are potential resource suppliers. So, let me see if I got it right, you don't see any problem in letting the biggest growing world power set up things to further their agenda, roll over human rights and general build a new generation of client states?

Good way to restart the cold war, which wasn't a bright move the first time.

I'm not trying to sound mean, but I have no option but to agree. The idea of as much is stupid at best.

I mean no offense, but I think you don't know much about China.

You're basically suggesting putting a power in charge which is responsible for preventing us from handling that issue with North Korea. Because we all need to cool down and chill out, it's not that bad, they just dig tunnels under the DMZ and regularly agress the South Koreans and they've only kidnapped 100 Japanese citizens, they're not that bad, just misunderstood. Right?

If that's the power you want running things around the world then I suggest you emigrate girl. Good luck!

Oniya

I'd be more comfortable with Russia taking some of the burden than China.  In a perfect world, I'd bring back the British Navy.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Oniya on August 13, 2011, 11:47:52 PM
I'd be more comfortable with Russia taking some of the burden than China.  In a perfect world, I'd bring back the British Navy.

Or the EU as a battlegroup would be nice

Zakharra

Quote from: RubySlippers on August 13, 2011, 08:52:24 PM
That is not our problem and why should we do it all, China is a member of the Permanent Security Council with Russia, England, Frand and the United States. Let China build carrier battle groups if they want and we can then expect them to act as a military asset to the UN taking some of the burden off of the USA.

So I think we should be backing China with five carrier groups they can be an asset in these missions of yours I for one am sick of being the global police for the UN, they can find someone else now who would take up the call to arms for some third world nation or to do relief efforts.

The problem, as others have pointed out is that China would NOT be doing it to help the UN. They'd be doing it to help themselves first and foremost. The UN would be a very distant second, if that, in their considerations.

Callie Del Noire

Don't forget that China subscribe to a philosophy of self-interest. They aren't going to happily set up a stable non-reliant government of any kind when they come in. They'll put in a client state that works for them, buys from them and whose leadership owes the Chinese their position of power.

elone

First of all, I am no military expert, but the whole idea of a great naval battle between carrier groups at sea is just too WWII. They are simply to vulnerable to modern weapons even with their escorts. The only use for them is as a deterrent threat against those that don't have the weaponry to sink them and for limited support for warfare against the same.

If the U.S., China, or anyone else attacked a carrier it would be considered an act of war and bring on the armageddon. That is what keeps them floating. Sending five or six thousand military to a watery grave would not be taken lightly by any side.

Question, has any carrier been attacked since WWII? Don't recall Korean war or Vietnam era carriers attacked.
In the end, all we have left are memories.

Roleplays: alive, done, dead, etc.
Reversal of Fortune ~ The Hunt ~ Private Party Suites ~ A Learning Experience ~A Chance Encounter ~ A Bark in the Park ~
Poetry
O/O's

Oniya

At the time, the purpose of the aircraft carrier was not to fight itself, but to be a mobile platform to bring the fighter planes to the conflict.  Yes, they were attacked, in the same way that any military base (camp) might be attacked, but the weaponry was the planes they could launch.  Typically, the average plane of the day couldn't do too much to the carrier proper (the Kamikaze probably did the worst damage), so the conflict would play out between the aircraft.

That being said, I don't think we've had plane v. plane fights since WWII.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

elone

We certainly had plane vs plane in Korea. Migs fought us in the skies. But did planes or ships attack our carriers since WWII?
In the end, all we have left are memories.

Roleplays: alive, done, dead, etc.
Reversal of Fortune ~ The Hunt ~ Private Party Suites ~ A Learning Experience ~A Chance Encounter ~ A Bark in the Park ~
Poetry
O/O's

Callie Del Noire

It's kind of hard, given the structure of the Carrier group, to get in close enough to hit the carrier itself. One of the things is that the carrier is an instrument of power project. With a Carrier, you can put a plane over something like 90-something percent of the planet. The Air Force would like to convince the world that a Carrier isn't needed with modern tech, something they have been trying to do since before the Korean war.

That being said, yes the carrier is a very vulnerable target. One of the reasons why it's behind a layer of ships and subs. The trick is getting in close enough to take the shot, which isn't always as easy as it would seem. One of the things the Chinese are working on is high speed missile that could close in quicker than conventional attack missile, one of the components of a new plan where they would use on a carrier group. A shower of super-sonic speed missiles which were designed with the intent to defeat current anti-missile defense systems.

Like I said, the Chinese are experts at the long game and this isn't just an 'accident'.

Bayushi

#41
Quote from: elone on August 19, 2011, 02:02:57 PMWe certainly had plane vs plane in Korea. Migs fought us in the skies. But did planes or ships attack our carriers since WWII?
There were also air battles over Vietnam.

Former (disgraced) Congressman Randall Cunningham is an ace fighter pilot from Vietnam, for example.

And as Callie stated, a carrier is never unprotected. A carrier travels with a "strike group" normally consisting of 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Guided Missile Cruisers, 2 Anti Aircraft Warships, and 1-2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Akiko on August 19, 2011, 04:06:35 PM
There were also air battles over Vietnam.

Former (disgraced) Congressman Randall Cunningham is an ace fighter pilot from Vietnam, for example.

And as Callie stated, a carrier is never unprotected. A carrier travels with a "strike group" normally consisting of 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Guided Missile Cruisers, 2 Anti Aircraft Warships, and 1-2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates.

This group is typically spread over a WIDE radius. One of the most dangerous spots in the world for a carrier group is going into the gulf, since you can at one point in the transit SEE the other side. The groups usually transit at night, at speed at full stations. I know.. I've done it at least six times.

Why?

Because the Iranians own one side and with the Chinese anti-ship missiles lining one side of the gulf you tend to get nervous. Particularity when said missiles can hit the other side and not hit the end of their range.  This is one of the reasons that a LOT of folks get nervous in that region. The Iranians could quite literally, with the right gear and manpower, shut the gulf down. Only the involvement of the US and others keeps them from doing so.

gaggedLouise

#43
Quote from: Oniya on August 13, 2011, 11:47:52 PM
I'd be more comfortable with Russia taking some of the burden than China.  In a perfect world, I'd bring back the British Navy.

I'd be surprised if Russia doesn't upgrade its navy in the next dozen years, and that could well include new aircraft carriers (at present they only have one and it's an old one from Soviet days). They must be feeling the need, ever since the 18th century access to the oceans has been a long-term objective for Russia - even if they have often been at a disadvantage or left their combat navy lying without real upkeep. With the U.S./Nato dominating the Atlantic and China aiming to reach out into the Pacific, while the Arctic is becoming more and more open to ships in the near future, they would be feeling the fear of getting shut in and kept out of the high seas.

And Russia is one country that has no problem with cash, manpower or getting all the liquid fuel they need to power big ships and aircraft (what they don't have is a network of bases around the world to support a fleet of carriers, but supposing the main use of the fleet wouldn't be aimed at the West, perhaps they might dock at American and British bases sometimes).

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: gaggedLouise on August 19, 2011, 05:10:46 PM
I'd be surprised if Russia doesn't upgrade its navy in the next dozen years, and that could well include new aircraft carriers (at present they only have one and it's an old one from Soviet days). They must be feeling the need, ever since the 18th century access to the oceans has been a long-term objective for Russia - even if they have often been at a disadvantage or left their combat navy lying without real upkeep. With the U.S./Nato dominating the Atlantic and China aiming to reach out into the Pacific, while the Arctic is becoming more and more open to ships in the near future, they would be feeling the fear of getting shut in and kept out of the high seas.

And Russia is one country that has no problem with cash, manpower or getting all the liquid fuel they need to power big ships and aircraft (what they don't have is a network of bases around the world to support a fleet of carriers, but supposing the main use of the fleet wouldn't be aimed at the West, perhaps they might dock at American and British bases sometimes).

With what capital? They are a kleptocracy (government of thieves) and they got more than enough problems in their own region. They have dissent among former client states, massive corruption and a lack of reliability to outside investors that makes only the most adventuresome come in to invest. Given that most western companies are legally restrained from bribery (yes they are) and even looking into Russian ventures can get you investigated because the business of the day involves graft on ALL levels. It's a huge potential power, but their corruption and lack of control of things makes it too weak to move back into rebuilding their navy.

Short of something radically polarizing, I don't see the russians measuring up to their ability as a world power level navy. Too much of their money is going into the coffers of the Russian mob.

gaggedLouise

#45
Callie, the Russian state doesn't seem to have any lack of money or any problem with finding business partners. Half of Europe is buying Russian natural gas or planning to do so, and in the future China could be an obvious and even bigger buyer, if the Russians manage to provide more pipelines, modern highways and railways in Eastern Siberia - they've actually been working steadily on expanding the railways there for some time. And everyone wants to have a slice in the oil and gas industry of Siberia and the Arctic Ocean. If none of the foreign companies or banks involved bother to talk about the kickbacks they'd give, then a U.S. or British court is pretty much powerless.

You may be right that there is ingrained corruption in Russia, but I wouldn't say that the actual state decisions are guided simply by gluttony. Those guys in the Kremlin are well aware of what their country needs to guard its position - and aware of their solid advantages over countries like Romania, Estonia or the Ukraine. They have huge resources, cash, and a confident middle class that's growing prosperous and which mostly doesn't care for political opposition. It's the opposite of Ukraine or even Italy. I could bet a good deal of money on that they're eager to start to rebuild some lost military positions.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Oniya

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on August 19, 2011, 05:31:30 PM
They are a kleptocracy (government of thieves)

I have to say, I love this phrase.  If that isn't a real word already, it should be.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

gaggedLouise

Quote from: Oniya on August 19, 2011, 06:11:55 PM
I have to say, I love this phrase.  If that isn't a real word already, it should be.

Yes, nice word, like "she's a bonafide pretend-o-crat" (I saw that used online about a member of the Rothschild family).

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: gaggedLouise on August 19, 2011, 06:16:45 PM
Yes, nice word, like "she's a bonafide pretend-o-crat" (I saw that used online about a member of the Rothschild family).

but unlike pretend-o-crat, kleptocracy is a real word. And the current government in Russia is a good example of how it goes. Not the best I'm sure, just look at most of Central/South America and Africa for good ones. And the US companies are legally bound from giving brides and such (It's called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and most Western European Nations have similar laws on the books. It's hard to catch a company but it's REALLY bad to get caught.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kleptocracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy


Oniya

Quote from: gaggedLouise on August 19, 2011, 06:16:45 PM
Yes, nice word, like "she's a bonafide pretend-o-crat" (I saw that used online about a member of the Rothschild family).

I think something like 'pseudocrat' would flow better.  But anyways.

My point was more that I trust China as a 'partner in global peacekeeping' about as far as I could shot-put Idaho.  Russia has had a sizable navy in the past, and it looks like they've given up the 'World Domination (TM)' schtick for the present, and as I said, Britain has had experience with a world-wide naval presence.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Oniya on August 19, 2011, 07:49:27 PM
I think something like 'pseudocrat' would flow better.  But anyways.

My point was more that I trust China as a 'partner in global peacekeeping' about as far as I could shot-put Idaho.  Russia has had a sizable navy in the past, and it looks like they've given up the 'World Domination (TM)' schtick for the present, and as I said, Britain has had experience with a world-wide naval presence.

I agree with the assessment about China (except I'd be more likely to shot put the entire west coast) but the thing is.. Russia is broke and the Brits has just recently downsized fairly hard. To the point they are no longer in the 'We have a carrier in our navy' club. Truthfully we need to resize the navy a bit.. because the first and foremost role of it we're failing.

Projecting power, and securing the sea lanes for commercial traffic. Right now..we can't do it.

Hence problems like Somolia.

Me, I am waiting for someone to start jacking boats in places like the Straits off the coast of Singapore.

Bayushi

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on August 19, 2011, 07:59:27 PMTo the point they are no longer in the 'We have a carrier in our navy' club.
What happened to the Illustrious and Ark Royal?
:o

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Akiko on August 19, 2011, 09:08:41 PM
What happened to the Illustrious and Ark Royal?
:o

Illustrious is being decommissioned.. (sorry the articles I read hinted that it ALREADY had been), and scrapped by 2014.

Ark Royal is laid up I think...

and the Invincible, the 3rd carrier of theirs that I've seen personally, has been retired.

gaggedLouise

Quote from: Callie del NoireRussia is broke

Erm, where do you get your economy news? Things have changed a great deal since the nineties. These days, in the area of mining and energy, everyone wants to do business in Russia and as a state she's in a strong bargaining position.

Do I have to point out that this is not about arguing that Russia is an all-healthy democracy (hey, is the U.S. a perfectly healthy democracy at present?) that we'd be completely comfortable with? I am not denying Russia has an unplesant dark underbelly, but it's got plenty of cash, raw assets (steel, oil, technical know-how) and a good naval and military tradition. She is probably in a better position to expand her military arm, and do it in the fast lane, than for instance Britain, Germany, Poland or Canada.

Again I don't think the Russian leadership is simply some sort of mafia rule. There's a good deal of backroom dealing but that doesn't make them a republic of thieves.

I'd agree with Oniya that if the choice is between a militarily strong China and a similar Russia, then Russia is better. We're not going to see a return to the bipolar order with just two superpowers, and with both Russia and China on the rise Russia is not gonna be able to go for an agenda of world domination. Russia seems more reliable, and even if much of its city people are now apathetic to democracy, seen as something you're making your own and taking part in, Russia is a much less rigid state than China.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Callie Del Noire

I think that Russia is still dangerous, unstable and ruled in a good part by thugs and opportunists. Fun note, since 1993, over 160 Russian journalists have been murdered with another 200 being tagged as accidents/terrorism.   Most of these men and women were investigating government and/or crime. In the rare few instances where someone WAS tried for murder, it took between one and two years to find them.

Yes, Russia is doing better but it far from a stable state that I would trust 'saving' other states.

Asuras

Quote from: gaggedLouiseWe're not going to see a return to the bipolar order with just two superpowers, and with both Russia and China on the rise Russia is not gonna be able to go for an agenda of world domination. Russia seems more reliable, and even if much of its city people are now apathetic to democracy, seen as something you're making your own and taking part in, Russia is a much less rigid state than China.

Russian foreign policy has seemed a bit knee-jerk and smolderingly anti-Western for a long time...it was only three years ago that they invaded Georgia over that Ossetia nonsense.

I'm not thrilled about China either but they seem more circumspect and I don't see Nazbols and Putin youth leagues running around in the fringe. Russia scares me more than China does on a political level.

But I think more importantly, the Chinese get it. They do business with us. We do business with them. We do business together in the same countries - we do business side by side in Indonesia or Africa or South America and we don't have to overthrow governments just because we're afraid the other guy will take over the country. In the Cold War that was the problem, we couldn't do business with each other. We work together in markets and appreciate that it's not a zero sum game where it's either the Chinese get the oil or the Americans get the oil.

Markets honestly make this polarity thing obsolete...it's when people don't see that that dangerous things happen.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Asuras on August 21, 2011, 06:41:48 PM
Russian foreign policy has seemed a bit knee-jerk and smolderingly anti-Western for a long time...it was only three years ago that they invaded Georgia over that Ossetia nonsense.

I'm not thrilled about China either but they seem more circumspect and I don't see Nazbols and Putin youth leagues running around in the fringe. Russia scares me more than China does on a political level.


Simply put.. anyone tried to shake the structure in China like those guys do.. they'd get shot. And their families billed for the ammo.