New Chinese Carrier

[mikeo80]

I have been reading about the launch and sea trials of the PRC's first carrier.

From some of the pictures I have seen, this thing is an odd looking duck.

Front sloping ramp like HMS Invincible class carriers.

What looks like side mount catapult launchers like USS Nimitz class.

It's like the PRC could not make up its' mind on what to build.

Also, no mention in articles if this thing is oil or a nuclear driven ship.

IIRC all active US carriers are now nuclear.

My $0.02

Mike

[cavtroop]

It's the old Russian carrier 'Riga' or Ukranian 'Varyag':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...carrier_Varyag

[Matt Wiser]

You can bet that Pacific Fleet will be keeping an eye on her. Subs following her to get acoustic signature, hull photos, etc once she sails outside PRC territorial waters, for one thing. P-3s flying close is another. Not to mention that the U.S. allies in the region will be watching this as well-and maybe start their own carrier programs (the ROKs and JMSDF may go the "Harrier-carrier" route with something that can support F-35B operations). And every sub driver in the Western Pacific, whether USN, ROKN, JMSDF, Taiwanese, etc. will look at that ship and be thinking "target." Remember that every sub driver, regardless of what Navy they are in, views all surface ships as the enemy.

[Mohoender]

Some sources also claim that two more carriers are under construction. Anyway, China has stated that it intends to have three carriers (to match ROK and Japan navies). New class of LPD are also being launched.

China's obvious intention is to build a navy that will allow it to have some projection capability but with no intention to compete with the US Navy. What would be the point?

Something else is to take into account, China (like Persia) has not attacked any foreign power in more than 3000 years. Why would this change?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Something else is to take into account, China (like Persia) has not attacked any foreign power in more than 3000 years. Why would this change?

While not saying that they have any interest at all in offensive actions (besides against Taiwan and Nepal and very local areas), it's worth mentioning that the China of today is completely different to that of most of the last 3,000 years. Communist China is a relative newcomer to the scene with the last 60 years or so not much more than a drop in the historical ocean of the region. Who knows what the current generation, or more importantly, the coming generation of rulers have in mind...

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

While not saying that they have any interest at all in offensive actions (besides against Taiwan and Nepal and very local areas), it's worth mentioning that the China of today is completely different to that of most of the last 3,000 years. Communist China is a relative newcomer to the scene with the last 60 years or so not much more than a drop in the historical ocean of the region. Who knows what the current generation, or more importantly, the coming generation of rulers have in mind...

People tend to make too much of Chinese communism, it goes back to the cold war when everything red was bad.

The basic chinese culture and attitude hasn't changed for 3000 years, they favour buffer zones around china that can give them time to react to hostile actions (like Korea and Taiwan) but favour an economic approach to empire building, they always have. The rise of China today just shows that they are sticking to their old methods of economic domination as opposed to military expansion.

The chinese are not stupid.

[dragoon500ly]

While it is something that the various intelligence agencies and the Navy will be keeping a close eye on, from an offensive point of view, its not much of a threat.

Please consider that with a force of three carriers, the PRC will, most likely have one in port for repair/maintenance, one working up (training) or recovering from sea duty, and one at sea. I can see surges with two carriers at sea but it would be doubtful if they can support all three at sea for anything more than short periods of time.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

While it is something that the various intelligence agencies and the Navy will be keeping a close eye on, from an offensive point of view, its not much of a threat.

Agree. However, it will fill an important gap in Chinese defensive capability. It will strengthen their regional defense and allow them to protect their commercial shipping against piracy and terrorist threats.

It will also allow them to take an acitve part in future international operations, seriously increasing their diplomatic weight. As soon as China gets a projection capability I bet that they might be less opposed to international military operations.

[dragoon500ly]

The PRC's carrier is the former Russian "Varyag", second of the Kuznetsov-class.

Accordinging to "Combat Fleets of the World"; full load displacement is 67,000 tons, she has 4 sets of boilers/steam tubines that deliver 200,000 shp and gives the ship a max speed of 32 knots. Like the previous Kiev-class, the Kuznetsov carries a heavy armament of 16 SS-N-19 Shipwreck SSMs (reloadable!!!), 24 SA-N-9 VLS SAM (each VLS capable of launching up to 384 SAMs!), 8 CADS-1 CIWS (8 tube laucher for SA-N-11 SAMs and 2 30mm gatlings),6 AK-630 CIWS 30mm gatling guns as well as 2 RBU-12000 ASW RL (10 barrels). Air group consists of 24 Su-27 Flanker and 9-12 Helix-A and -C ASW/AEW helicopters.

Sooooo, just what does this all mean?

The PRC's design will carry heavy SSM and SAM armament, well in excess of any US carrier. But the weapons loadout comes at a heavy price. The real weapon of any carrier is not the number of missiles it can carry, but the size of her air group and her ability to maintain that air group for extended operations.

This was the real weakspot of the Kiev and Kuznet-classes, they are incapable of fielding large air groups and they do not have the on-board resources to maintain their aircraft or the magazine/fuel tankage to support the aircraft for more than 3-5 days.

Most likely, their operational role will be that of fleet air defense, early warning and anti-submarine warfare.

Of course, this is all conjecture, there has been no reliable, released info on their armament/air group. I talked with a couple of air dales in my office and they are of the opinion that the PRC's carrier will very likely be a near-copy of the Soviets, at least as far as its armament/air group mix. Even removing the SSMs and many of the SAMs will only free up enough space to increase the air group to 45-55 aircraft.

[Panther Al]

It seams that many are taking a serious look at this new Chinese carrier: the wall street journal has a front page above the fold article on it. Dunno if it's on the free side of their Internet page, but worth peeking at.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Dunno if it's on the free side of their Internet page, but worth peeking at.

I don't know if that was an intentional pun on your part Panther Al, but thanks for the LOL either way

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

...from an offensive point of view, its not much of a threat.

It's a significant threat. When your not looking at it like a no holds barred WW3 apocalypse between the world's superpowers.

Instead of comparing it that of the US navy's carriers, consider the local nations and how the purchase of a single old diesel electric sub or handful of fighter jets has been enough to increase tensions in the past.

If you are Southeast Asian or from the Philippines for example, this is a rather big deal.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Something else is to take into account, China (like Persia) has not attacked any foreign power in more than 3000 years. Why would this change?

Really? Ask the Vietnamese as recently as 1979 about that. And while I have no problem with China enlarging its own military to better fit her role as a global economic power, her immediate neighbors have every reason to be wary of her growing power.

Benjamin

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Really? Ask the Vietnamese as recently as 1979 about that. And while I have no problem with China enlarging its own military to better fit her role as a global economic power, her immediate neighbors have every reason to be wary of her growing power.

Benjamin

It was an answer to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia a year earlier and China withdrew after it. It is a border clash more than a war. In any ways can it qualify as an invasion war (by invasion war, I mean a war in which the invader intend to gain territory). To this, you can add, the Chinese involvement in the Korean war. China is backing its allies. This is quite normal even if these allies are questionable.

Try to take Tibet from Chinese rule and you can expect a full scale war with China.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Accordinging to "Combat Fleets of the World"; full load displacement is 67,000 tons, she has 4 sets of boilers/steam tubines that deliver 200,000 shp and gives the ship a max speed of 32 knots. Like the previous Kiev-class, the Kuznetsov carries a heavy armament of 16 SS-N-19 Shipwreck SSMs (reloadable!!!), 24 SA-N-9 VLS SAM (each VLS capable of launching up to 384 SAMs!), 8 CADS-1 CIWS (8 tube laucher for SA-N-11 SAMs and 2 30mm gatlings),6 AK-630 CIWS 30mm gatling guns as well as 2 RBU-12000 ASW RL (10 barrels). Air group consists of 24 Su-27 Flanker and 9-12 Helix-A and -C ASW/AEW helicopters.

This figures cannot apply to the Shi Lang (not exactly at least). Don't forget than Varyag had been delivered without weaponry, navigation systems and propelling systems. There might be some significant differences.

I agree with what you say about the defensive roles of such carriers but utside of US carriers this is true of any current carrier. Still an airgroup of 30 aircrafts plus around 10 helicopters is more than enough to make your point when your purpose is to defend commercial lanes and be acitve in an international intervention. The focus on ASW warfare is, however, a misunderstanding, helicopters being far better fitted to this task than aircrafts.

The Kuznetsov design is more than a match for ships such as the Indian carriers, the Chakri Naruebet, the Hiei-class, the Sao Paulo, the Charles de Gaulle, the Invincible. It still remains a match for the future Queen Elizabeth.

Of course, it cannot compete with the US carriers but why would you commit suicide by declzring war to the USA when you are big enough not to be attacked by this same USA and when a far better option is to trade with US?

[ShadoWarrior]

If China had a "border clash" with Vietnam, what was the outright Chinese invasion of India in 1962, another "border clash"? China is a very real threat to all of her neighbors.

[Fusilier]

It gets called a "border clash" when it fails as an invasion I guess...

But I see that the Vietnamese refer to it as "war" though, but who are they to decide? It only involved a opposing force that commanded more divisions than the United States Army has on paper.

Regardless, the point stands that China has indeed attacked another foreign power, and Vietnam is good example no matter what you call it or why it happened (supporting Pol Pot of all things).

The deep rooted distrust between Vietnamese and China didn't begin in 1979 either. For over a thousand years much of Vietnam was controlled by the Chinese. The sentiment of distrust and dislike continues to this very day, and once you throw in ahem, border clashes and battles for the Spratly's, it won't be going away anytime soon.

[Legbreaker]

The Chinese people are roughly the same, the leadership of the past half century is definately different in almost all ways.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

It's a significant threat. When your not looking at it like a no holds barred WW3 apocalypse between the world's superpowers.

Instead of comparing it that of the US navy's carriers, consider the local nations and how the purchase of a single old diesel electric sub or handful of fighter jets has been enough to increase tensions in the past.

If you are Southeast Asian or from the Philippines for example, this is a rather big deal.

And this is a valid point. It is certainly going to lead to military build-up in the region. And that means all kinds of problems 2-3 years down the road.

But what can nations in the region do? South Korea and Japan would be the most likely to lay down new ship construction, Vietnam will certainly start building missile boats and I expect trying to get their hands on submarines. The Philippines are not currently able to sustain a military build up at least not without a massive infusion of loans from the US. India is already adding new naval construction, the question is can their economy sustain any meaningful build up.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

...a massive infusion of loans from the US.

Umm, you have seen what's happening with the US economy lately haven't you?
It doesn't really matter what regional neighbours can or cannot do. The fact is China has, and will continue over the coming years, radically changed the perceived balance of power in Asia.
Given the US financial woes, chances are that in 10-15 years or so they will be nowhere near the military check on China they are now. China, whether we like it or not, is the emerging superpower and is likely to be the only super power within a few decades. With the massive debt the US has on it's back, some serious spending cuts will have to be made. These cuts have to include military spending and a dramatic reduction in force projection capability.

[Panther Al]

And to cull one of my earlier posts in another thread, lets not forget this:




The Spratly's. In short, a group of some 100 islets, atolls, and reefs that total only about 5 square kilometers of land, but sprawl across some 410,000 square kilometers of the South China Sea. Set amid some of the world's most productive fishing grounds, the islands are believed to have enormous oil and gas reserves. Several nations have overlapping claims on the group. About 45 of the islands are currently occupied by small numbers of military personnel. China claims them all, but occupies only 8, Vietnam has occupied or marked 25, the Philippines 8, Malaysia 6, and Taiwan one. So far we have told everyone that we are backing the Philippines, and Vietnam and China has had naval battles over them: in 88 the ChiCom navy sank a Vietnamese Troop transport that was heading to a marked Vietnamese island. The Chinese has also recently occupied (with armed troops) an island claimed by the Philippines and have told them that under no circumstances will China permit anyone to explore for oil: particularly addressed to the Philippines.



Now: This is where almost all the angst in the area is rooted around. Despite what China says, one look at a map will tell you that they don't have a dog in this hunt. But they are forcing it anyways. And so far they have bullied, shot, and killed to keep that dog in the hunt. What makes anyone think that as the Peoples Liberation Army's Navy (And aint that a mouthful) gets more powerful as they get more peaceful?

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Despite what China says, one look at a map will tell you that they don't have a dog in this hunt.

One of their best bits of evidence to push the "we own them" is that old Chinese vases and porcelain have been found on some of the islands.

[Panther Al]

True enough: But the question is, how and why? Was it an official Chinese Settlement? Was it traders, or people who bought Chinese goods because that was what they wanted?

I honestly have no answer to this: So it could be, and it might not be. You's pays your money, and you's take the chances.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

True enough: But the question is, how and why? Was it an official Chinese Settlement? Was it traders, or people who bought Chinese goods because that was what they wanted?

I honestly have no answer to this: So it could be, and it might not be. You's pays your money, and you's take the chances.

I was being sarcastic... or something like that.

[Panther Al]

I figured you was, but still, I am fussy enough to point out such things. After all, for fun one long weekend I decided to (using the info in the TW2K books) to figure out how much of *everything* a US ACAV regiment would need: From food to bullets, from trucks to tanks, to how many sets of uniforms, how much in the way of spares (Figured at 2.5% of total weight of everything that might need them), and how much of everything it would take to move said regiment 600km. And how much it would take to move said muchness, etc, etc, etc...

[95th Rifleman]

China has always seen it's direct neighbours as "buffer" zones. Historicly they have always been keen on having these nations as client states or occupied protectorates, this is nothing new and can't really be linked to their relatively new communist government. They have been scrapping over Korea and taiwan for centuries (if not longer).

Some folks in the west are still obsessed with this capatalism v communism thing and see China as the new russia, an evil red beast just waiting to spread communism like a crimson plague across the world.

Sure China is a potential threat to it's direct neighbours if they can't secure client state status over them, but this has been the case for 3 thousand years. On a global scale the Chinese are more focused on economic dominance because it's the age old method by which they have always succeeded. It took a superior maritime, economic empire (the British) to knock them off their perch and now there is no longer such a threat as America is in China's pocket now, financialy speaking.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Umm, you have seen what's happening with the US economy lately haven't you?
It doesn't really matter what regional neighbours can or cannot do. The fact is China has, and will continue over the coming years, radically changed the perceived balance of power in Asia.
Given the US financial woes, chances are that in 10-15 years or so they will be nowhere near the military check on China they are now. China, whether we like it or not, is the emerging superpower and is likely to be the only super power within a few decades. With the massive debt the US has on it's back, some serious spending cuts will have to be made. These cuts have to include military spending and a dramatic reduction in force projection capability.

Something been happening Beyond the Beltway? Another congressman showing his wenie on YouTube perhaps?

IMHO what is happening is that the PRC understands that the end of PaxAmerica is coming and they are simply positioning themselves to start the PaxChina.

It is doubtful that the PRC will be able to sustain the global reach that the US enjoyed. But certainly I expect them be the dominant power in the Far East and to be able to project, at least, naval and diplomatic power. Will they reach superpower status? Doubt it, if the last 50 odd years have shown us anything, any nation that reaches for that status will certainly implode at some point from the sheer cost.

And while this is all going on, it seems that everyone has forgotten a certain terrorist organization....anybody truly believe that with the death of OBL, that they aren't making plans for a little payback?

[pmulcahy11b]

One surprising thing I heard yesterday is that economist are worried because China's economy appears to be flattening -- they've had less than 3% GDP growth the past three years, and each year it's been falling a little. At the beginning of the 20th century, they were the world's third largest economy, and at the beginning of the 21st, they're still the world's 3rd largest economy.

The US hegemony was born out of World War 2. Maybe China will remember this and engineer a cataclysmic war to bring them out front?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Some sources also claim that two more carriers are under construction. Anyway, China has stated that it intends to have three carriers (to match ROK and Japan navies). New class of LPD are also being launched.

China's obvious intention is to build a navy that will allow it to have some projection capability but with no intention to compete with the US Navy. What would be the point?

Something else is to take into account, China (like Persia) has not attacked any foreign power in more than 3000 years. Why would this change?

Invasion of northern Dzungaria (1949)
Invasion of Tibet (1950)
Korean War (1950-1953)
Sino-Indian War (1962)
Sino-Soviet Border Conflict (1969)
Battle of the Paracel Islands (1974)
Sino-Vietnam War (1979)
Sino-Vietnam Border Conflicts (1979-1990)

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The US hegemony was born out of World War 2. Maybe China will remember this and engineer a cataclysmic war to bring them out front?

To be "out front" they'd have to win such a war, or at least profit from it. There'll be no winners from a World War 3, even if the Chinese managed to engineer a war in which they didn't get sucked into it themselves. Military issues aside (and that's a big assumption), crashing the global economy (which WW3 would certainly do) would hurt China enough to prevent them from dominating the world.

BTW, even if one ignores US interests, Russia would not sit idly by and permit China to replace the US as the world's superpower. While there's little love lost between Russia and the US, Russia knows that they're safe from the US (despite their frequent protestations to the contrary). There's no love lost between Russia and China. They've hated each other forever.