China's first aircraft carrier

[Bayushi]

I 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Callie Del Noire]

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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

We 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]

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]

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).

[Callie Del Noire]

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]

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.

[Oniya]

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.

[gaggedLouise]

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).

[Callie Del Noire]

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]

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.