China considering building its first aircraft carrier

Run_to_da_hills

China said Tuesday it is seriously considering building its first aircraft carrier as it prepares to send two warships and a supply vessel to protect Chinese commercial ships in the pirate-infested waters off Somalia.

The three ships from the South Sea Fleet would set sail Friday from Sanya in southern Hainan island province with two helicopters and also carrying special forces, missiles and cannon systems, Rear Admiral Xiao Xinnian, navy deputy chief of staff, told the media Tuesday.

Can they be trusted? This country is well capable of building many of them and at an alarming rate if they got down to it. The US has already shown concern.

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnPEK288293.html

Fratton Fred

They've got nuclear weapons and they've got submarines. I don't see how Aircraft carriers pose more of a threat to the west than those already do.

Nuravictus

Aircraft Carriers pose a different kind of threat, it gives the Chinese Navy a offensive platform to launch any invasion of say Taiwan. This would be like when the USSR made the Mig 31 it was a chance of there defensive doctrine to a offensive doctrine.

Manic Moran

Nuravictus wrote: »

Aircraft Carriers pose a different kind of threat, it gives the Chinese Navy a offensive platform to launch any invasion of say Taiwan. This would be like when the USSR made the Mig 31 it was a chance of there defensive doctrine to a offensive doctrine.

The Chinese have much bigger problems crossing the Taiwan straits than not having an aircraft carrier. Not having much amphibious capability is far higher on the list. And frankly, Taiwan's close enough it can be reached from land anyway.

Why would the Foxhound have allowed a move to offensive doctrine? It's a bomber interceptor, not an air superiority fighter.

NTM

neilled

In fairness it was coming and has been for a long time. Did anyone really think they were using the ex soviet yoke as a floating casino?

Regarding an aircraft carrier, I think the current way the Taiwanese are looking at it is that any attack that will come will be a "decapitation" attack - hence them switching to a large fleet of Mowag like APC's (which interstingly have been designed by nonother than Ireland very own Timoney Technology. I think they're building a thousand or so of them) with the emphasis on mobility to meet a lightening strike that comes from the air or from within (units smuggled in on the new direct flights instituted by the KMT) as opposed to a "Saving Private Ryan" style beach assault.

Nuravictus

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Chinese have much bigger problems crossing the Taiwan straits than not having an aircraft carrier. Not having much amphibious capability is far higher on the list. And frankly, Taiwan's close enough it can be reached from land anyway.

Why would the Foxhound have allowed a move to offensive doctrine? It's a bomber interceptor, not an air superiority fighter.

NTM

To Lauch a amphibious operation you need the navy to secure the area. Look at what happened when Germany invaded Crete. They had air superiority but the Royal Navy Sank most of the sea bound reinforcements. Also Taiwan had a defense pact with the US so that if it was invaded the US would enter the war with Taiwan.

All i remember about the Foxhound was that it was better than anything Nato could field at the time so it but Nato on the back hand for any armed engagement at the time. It was built as the counter to the F16. Maybe I am wrong

the_syco

[url=http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,168287,00.html?wh=wh]military.com[/url] wrote:

ex-Soviet carrier Varyag, now moored at the port of Dalian, or even the carrier Minsk, moored as a "theme park" at Shenzhen. . . . A South Korean newspaper has stated that "A source close to Chinese military affairs said . . . that China has been promoting the construction of a 93,000-ton atomic-powered carrier under a plan titled 085 Project. The nation also has a plan to build a 48,000-ton non-nuclear-powered carrier under the so-called 089 Project

Actually build one themselves? As opposed to using ex-Soviet ships? Possible, but you can't hide the building of one. Big Brother America will be watching...

Manic Moran

To Lauch a amphibious operation you need the navy to secure the area

Far more fundamentally than that, to launch an amphibious operation you need a navy to transport the troops. Have you seen China's 'gator fleet? (Or lack thereof)

However, even if they did have sufficient numbers of landing craft, what is an aircraft carrier with maybe 40 fast jets on it going to do in the Taiwan Straits that several hundred fighters and large bombers based on the unsinkable mainland isn't going to be able to do? They don't need to control the sea, they just need to stop the opposition from denying them the use of the sea. A different, but easier proposition.

Possible, but you can't hide the building of one. Big Brother America will be watching...

Go here on Google Earth/Maps. (Near Shanghai)

31 06' 17.87" N
121 00' 50.62" E

"OK. Now what...?"

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

The US has already shown concern.

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnPEK288293.html

US navy is as big as the next 17 biggest ones put together

neilled wrote: »

In fairness it was coming and has been for a long time. Did anyone really think they were using the ex soviet yoke as a floating casino?

qft

Nuravictus wrote: »

To Lauch a amphibious operation you need the navy to secure the area. Look at what happened when Germany invaded Crete. They had air superiority but the Royal Navy Sank most of the sea bound reinforcements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete Attacks by German planes, mainly Ju-87 and Ju-88, destroyed a number of British ships: three cruisers (Gloucester, Fiji and Calcutta) and six destroyers (Kelly, Greyhound, Kashmir, Hereward, Imperial and Juno). Seven other ships were damaged, including the battleships Warspite and Valiant, and the cruiser Orion.

the_syco wrote: »

Actually build one themselves? As opposed to using ex-Soviet ships? Possible, but you can't hide the building of one. Big Brother America will be watching...

you mean like this one ?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/16/flying_aircraft_carrier/

concussion

Manic Moran wrote: »

Go here on Google Earth/Maps. (Near Shanghai)

31 06' 17.87" N
121 00' 50.62" E

"OK. Now what...?"

NTM

Umm...low loaders
Or maybe some of those NASA shuttle crawlers!

the_syco

Manic Moran wrote: »

31 06' 17.87" N
121 00' 50.62" E

"OK. Now what...?"

NTM

Apart from a few bridges in the way, it has a nice river all the way to the sea. I'd say the the people who practices Falun Gong will "gladly" help the Chinese government build a river to

Love the photos of it:


Just a pity about the land between it, and somewhere useful. I think someone was playing too much of Command & Conquer: Red Alert...

Hande hoche!

Makes sense bearing in mind India has plans to have the Admiral Gorshkov converted fo their use.

Blackjack

Manic Moran wrote: »

Go here on Google Earth/Maps. (Near Shanghai)

31 06' 17.87" N
121 00' 50.62" E

"OK. Now what...?"

lollers

MasterSun

haha, u have been fooled.

that Carrier is a fake
read this
http://www.bobhenneman.info/china.htm

Manic Moran

Of course it's a fake...

It's great to bring up on these sorts of threads though!

NTM