China Reportedly Building 3 Aircraft Carriers (Rumor yet to be confirmed)

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htnavai.htm&base=htnavai&Prev=0&BeginCnt=31 ^

[Filibuster_60]

February 13, 2004: Publications in China report that China is building, with the assistance of Russia, three aircraft carriers. Called Project 9935, the ships are probably based on a Russian Nevskoye Design Bureau design contracted for in 1994. An article published in China says that the final design decision was made by Hudong Shipyard, Shanghai in 1999. The ship is thought to be a modified Russian Admiral Ghorshkov carrier “to Chinese specifications.” The ship is scaled up only about 6 percent.

Significant changes are the mounting of all point defenses and associated fire control systems, the mounting of a steam catapult on the angled flight deck, and modification/updating of the electronic suite. The Chinese article says that formal authorization to build a carrier was made in 1992. This apparently refers to legislation passed in that year which authorized “two aircraft carriers.” Three covered graving docks were constructed at Shangahi and eyewitness reports indicate all three now have carriers building in them. Another source says the lead ship launched in 2002 and was expected to complete about 2004. The Chinese article says the lead ship should “commission” in 2006 and that a “battle group” should form “by 2010.” These appear to be very conservative dates. Evidence strongly suggests that these ships are intended to be a technical surprise in several senses, including initial operating dates. The 2006 date is more realistic for the first carrier group. All three ships could be operational with battle groups by 2008-2010. The Chinese article says that maintenance facilities have been built at Shanghai, Dailan and Zhejiang. From this, and PLAN (Peoples Liberation Army Navy) organization, it appears each fleet will be allocated a single carrier.

The operational concept of these aircraft carriers differs from that of other nations. Aircraft carriers are not seen as the “core” of the fleet. Rather submarines are. Instead, carriers have a primary fleet defense mission: to provide air and anti-submarine defense for surface forces, especially amphibious flotillas and logistic convoys. There is a significant secondary offensive strike mission, indicated by the mounting of SSMs and also inherent in the ability of fighter-bombers to carry offensive weapons. However, it appears that the carriers are not intended for distant power projection operations in the sense US CVNs are. Designed to operate near PLAN bases, they are to be offshore aviation platforms for a mainly land based naval air force. This may mean the aviation staying power of these ships is much greater than would normally be expected if they operated dedicated air groups. Further, in the absence of the need to buy aircraft and train crews for them, the unit cost of the carriers is lower than otherwise would be the case, while the cost of lost maintenance assets is also less, should a carrier be sunk. This is an imaginative, but very reasonable, application of naval air power to the essentially regional requirements of the PLAN. However, the Chinese air force (PLAAF) is buying carrier capable aircraft and training pilots to use them.

General Characteristics:

Full Load Displacement: 48,000 tons (stated) Standard Displacement: 44,700 tons (estimated from Orel data) Light Displacement: 35,000 tons (estimated from Orel data) Maximum Displacement: 52,750 tons (estimated from Orel data) Overall Dimensions: 288x71x9 meters (calculated from Gorshkov data) Waterline Dimensions: 254x33x9 meters (calculated from Gorshkov data) Flight Deck Dimensions: 288x67.5 meters (calculated from Gorshkov data) Angled Flight Deck Dimensions: 220 meters long (standard length); 6.5 degree angle Hanger Dimensions: 144x68 meters = about 9,800 sq. meters (estimated from Orel data) Draft: 9 meters nominal, 10 meters maximum (same for all classes in design series) Full Speed: 28 knots (stated; confirmed by calculation from Gorshkov data) Machinery: Type: Geared Steam Turbines driving 4 shafts (same for all classes in series) Machinery: Turbines: 4xRussian TU-12 55,000 hp maximum (49,750 hp sustained)

[Sergio]

Gotta start a pool. How many of their own aircraft, crashing during landing attempts, will it take to sink said carrier?

[Leatherneck_MT]

In other news

The NOW gang has decided to field a Professional Football Team. Patricia Ireland was heard to comment "We will be challenging the Patriots for the superbowl next year."

The similarities are staggering

[Captain Rhino]

>>A follow-on piece says the PLAN doesn't intend to form dedicated air groups for these carriers, instead drawing on existing aircrews. For some years they've had pilots practice on mock flight decks.<<

I am not a naval aviator or NFO myself (did my time in the Marines) but I work professionally with a number of them and based on the discussions I've had with them about flight operations aboard ship, there is a qualitative difference in the demands of flying onto and off of a carrier when compared to flying from a mock deck on land. When not engaged in actual operations, flight operations aboard the big decks (and even the amphibs)are largely driven by the need to keep the aircrews current in their qualifications (which are extensive and expire frequently). But you probably know this, so I will just note that it is time consuming and expensive to create and maintain the necessary skill sets in these aircrews. The PLAN will probably end up creating de facto air groups (even if they are putatively land-based) simply because of the expense of the alternative - train every fighter and attack pilot to carrier standards.

>>I'm more worried about the simple fact they're now able to build larger warships at a faster pace. With all the shipbuilding technology they're getting from South Korea & Japan & the electronic expertise they're getting from all their advanced trading partners, along with the huge expansion of their maritime facilities, they could conceivably acquire the world's second-biggest navy by 2020.<<

Big navies require big $$ to operate and maintain. The expense is only justified if they have regional or global power projection requirements. Building alot of modern ships that sit pierside with undertrained crews does not create naval power. An analogy is owning a high performance car but rarely operating it. It is expensive eye candy until you begin to operate it alot and really learn the machine's and the operator's strengths and weaknesses. So the question is: what will the Chinese do will this big shiny Navy once it starts coming off of the ways? I would look at changes in their naval doctrine and at how extensive their fleet operations (deployments and large scale exercises) are. These will be indicators of how seriously committed they are to really expanding their seaward reach. Of course, unsaid in this conversation is the effect of three Chinese carriers supporting a PLAN move against Taiwan and the effect of their presence on our response when we come to Taiwa's aid. (At least I think we would come to the aid...)

>>But hey, Japan won't stand idly by & should keep a qualitative edge at least another decade. The western Pacific is looking to get rather interesting.<<

I agree. As dependent as they are on maritime commerce for practically everything, the Japanese will not cede control of their sea lines of communication to the Chinese. I think they are already feeling alittle uncomfortable with the Chinese launching a taikonaut (sp?) last year and announcing plans to go to the Moon. They are going to be playing catch-up now. Their recently announced intention to conduct manned space operations and the deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq (despite intense opposition at home) are early indicators of a building will to shift the focus of their military posture. But to what?

[LonghornFreeper]

The sad thing is, that as much as we mock Wong Wei here, he probably did the PLA much more good in death than he ever could have in life, considering all of the technology they almost certainly got off of the American plane.

[OldBrit]

Even though the decision to build these ships was made while Clinton was president, the Democrats are going to complaint that it is President Bush' fault that they are building them.

Liz

[Twinkie]

No. It's the one that only goes in reverse/ retreat mode.

[BroncosFan]

Wow, there are some happy submariners out there in attack boats all across the fleet if this is true. Personally, I think it's a mistake for them to expend the massive amounts of resources it would take to build and train even one battle group, let alone three. They have to know their flattops will be stalked from day one by our boats. And, boy, will there be more errors and trials than they can possibly imagine in the development process.

Here's how it might make sense for them. We have to assume that, in true Chinese style, losing one or two of these ships in a Taiwan war would NOT be a conflict ender for them because of their acceptance of casualties, the ability to bring air assets to bear over Taiwan regardless, and the fact that any such conflict would be a "bet the regime" war. So, unlike the US (and the UK in the Falklands) they can play a bit more aggressively with their carriers and try to push an exclusion zone out to the N, S, and E of Taiwan working in combo with their subs (Q: How many Kilos do we think they now have?) and shiny new Russian destroyers. Thus making a US intervention more costly (or at least playing on the fears of d-makers in DC that such an intervention would be more costly) and creating an impression on the Taiwanese mind that resistance is futile (. . . says Locutus).

Two variables govern whether Taiwan would survive a conflict with the PRC: (1) Taiwan's will to stand fast and not accept a Hong Kong style deal. And from how Beijing has treated HK of late, why would they? Still, cowardly pols can betray brave soldiers. See France, 1940. (2) Whether America declares its intention to intervene and then comes in right quick. The latter may well determine the former. If, over a week or so, a Kerry administration hems and haws and goes to the UN and then decides on a show of force, the ballgame might be over. And I've always wondered how America would react to a lost destroyer or two even if they were "exchanged" for a dozen ChiCom tin cans. It's been generations since a US ship was ablaze on the high seas. And there's a psychological component to suffering 150 casualties in the blink of an eye that cannot be overestimated in the days of the 24 hour news cycle and Somalia. While many have noted that post-9/11 America isn't as casualty adverse as she used to be, losing a couple of ships Falklands-style in a war with China (who'd be making an aggressive public diplomacy case about how it was all an internal matter, and Taiwan will be just fine after we occupy it) sure couldn't be passed off as an essential sacrifice in the war on terror.

[BroncosFan]

Japan just recently announced the start of a new "destroyer" program . . . destroyers with flattop decks. Basically, just another part of Koizumi's gradual reinterpretation of Japan's constitution. He seems to be going about it in a very, very clever manner in order to circumvent domestic doves. He just keeps the language as is and reads all the key terms in the most expansive way possible. Better than stirring up too many head-on fights, just do it and call it self-defense (joint exercises with India and Vietnam, patrols in the Straits, troops to Iraq, AWACs-type airborne radar ships, mid-air refueling). I say, go for it. The stronger our most important bilateral allies are, the better for us. Too bad Bush hasn't remedied Clinton's slight of spending 9 days in the PRC w/o even a courtesy call in Japan. Damn, that must've gotten under their polite skins! How rude.

[Modernman]

Japan just recently announced the start of a new "destroyer" program . . . destroyers with flattop decks.

They call everything a 'destroyer.' They'll eventually have 100,000 ton submersible ships that carry 80 aircraft and they'll still be calling them 'destroyers.'

When the Japanese buy American combat jets, they strip out all of the electronics and replace it with their own stuff. Wonder how much better their version of the F-15 is?

You think they'll have a "Nuclear Self-Defense Force" by the end of the decade? Or will they just rely on genetically engineered monsters created from DNA collected on Monster Island?

[ZULU]

"Publications in China report that China is building, with the assistance of Russia, three aircraft carriers."

Maybe they'll be as good as those Russian Subs which keep sinking. I guess the Chinese need them in case Taiwan attacks.

Seriously, this is an act of extreme stupidity (or poverty) on Russia's part. They might wind up being used to take over parts of eastern Russia as well as threaten the U.S.

And everytim we visit a store and buy nearly ANYTHING, we helping to provide material of these new carriers.

[realpatriot71]

Someone remind me: who's bank-rollin' these fools again?

[Cronos]

Japan is a dying power -- as is Russia. They are strong now, but as per statistics by 2050 their populations will have halved. What then? China is willing to wait.

[NorseWood]

Walmart

[realpatriot71]

Walmart

That's kind of what I thought. If China is building aircraft carriers, maybe we should be asking ourselves "why" - any number of "why's" - and formost in my mind is: Why does our Government allow so much trade with China that this is possible? Hmmmmm? Who benefits? Not me, not you - follow the money, and you'll find your answers.

[chilepepper]

Well, we will still be around, except we will be called Los Estados Unidos de America, and consist of a lot of other states, mostly Mexican and a few non-French Canadian provinces...

Like it or not, the hispanization of the US is on its way, and it is not entirely bad... much better than the Islamic Republic of the Europpean States, although I'm not sure how you say that in Arabic...

[NorseWood]

No matter what the trade policies might be, if the American citizens stop buying products made in China, or anywhere else outside our borders for that manner, (like buying cheap labor in India)our own economy and job market would certainly be much, much stronger.

[CWW]

With our technology, no less. We are making the same mistake that we made in the lead up to WWII with the Japanese. Back then, we sold scrap metal and steel out the wazoo to them, and they came back in the form of munitions raining down on our troops.

We, and the rest of the Western World, are funding their technological advances, and we will eventually reap what we have sown!

[Jim Cane]

Bunch of lazy pantload rabbits laughing smugly at a hungry and determined chinese turtle...

[StolarStorm]

It's nice to know that every time you shop Walmart or outsource an American job to China you are helping buy a bullet for a Red China soldier.

[Blue Scourge]

Lol..my thoughts exactly.