US reveals China arms build-up

The Age ^ | 07/03/05 | Hamish McDonald

[sukhoi-30mki]

The article states that China is working on getting around 13 subs.That's more than enough for a blockade,esp with Taiwan only possessing 2 decent subs(1980s vintage).The new D/E subs they are buying from Russia come with land attack capable cruise missiles.

[sukhoi-30mki]

Ping!!

[Paul Ross]

Your predictions?

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

The next time you buy a cheap Chinese-made product at Walmart or a hardware store.........think about China's trade surplus with the US.

Your money is going to buy weapons that might one day kill a family member in war.

Every American must be informed!!

[Diogenesis]

But they are so so peaceful, like the DNC and our Mullah-Supremes say
who then send the PRC US technology, and then let murderers and terrorists
within American borders go free. [/sarcasm]

China: Execution of Tibetan Prisoners (photos, warning: gruesome)

[CarrotAndStick]

Like the person who posted the other day on FR:

"...the Chinese are not all buying dinner plates with the money they make when Americans buy 'Made in China' stuff..."

[Brilliant]

I don't think China could successfully blockade Taiwan without triggering a war. It might as well just attack it. Although I agree there is cause for concern, I can't see China invading Taiwan with just 23 amphibious ships. They'd never make it across the straits.

[Poohbah]

Basically, China has a problem: they can't afford an army that can do all of the missions they wish it to do (namely, domestic head-bashing and overseas power projection). They can afford a big army. They can afford a good army. They can't afford both at the same time.

[CarrotAndStick]

The world (America included) will pay for its silence when China occupied Tibet. (If you haven't clicked the photo above this post).

LET ME WARN ALL AGAIN: THE PICTURES IN THE LINK ABOVE ARE EXTREMELY GRUESOME.

Please think twice the next time you see something with a 'Made in China' label. Remember, a part of your money paid for the execution of those Tibetans.

[Paul Ross]

Seems to me a number of panda-huggers in the Navy, and elsewhere, some on this very board, who used to constantly declaim about the lack of Red Chinese sea-lift, which when debunked, then shifted without admission to the sub-category lack of Red Chinese Amphibious capability...now have a lot of crow to swallow.

Meanwhile, we are permanently decommissioning 7 mothballed aircraft carriers, sinking most of them... retiring another active one, retiring 1 LHD, 2 Trident missile submarines, 9 destroyers and Rumsfeld is looking hard at decommissioning 8 attack submarines. And note that we STILL have not replaced the fleet-replenishment oilers that Xlinton decommissioned.

The madness has to stop. I am beginning to finally question the soundness of Rumsfeld's budgetary prioritizations. I suspect it may be time to recall Thomas Lehman to public service one more time, this time as Sec. Defense.

[CarrotAndStick]

Did you click on that picture of Chinese troops above? Trust me, you'll go mad if you do. I've.

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRUESOME.

[BroncosFan]

What ARE we doing with ships like the Kitty Hawk and the other 60k ton carriers?

[FreedomPoster]

Re: blockade

Sounds like fodder for 2-3 Los Angeles class or better attack boats.

Until China can't be sure we won't pitch in and help, there will be no blockade.

[sukhoi-30mki]

assuming the US stays out!!

[Paul_Denton]

Meanwhile, we are permanently decommissioning 7 mothballed aircraft carriers, sinking most of them... retiring another active one, retiring 1 LHD, 2 Trident missile submarines, 9 destroyers and Rumsfeld is looking hard at decommissioning 8 attack submarines. And note that we STILL have not replaced the fleet-replenishment oilers that Xlinton decommissioned. The madness has to stop. I am beginning to finally question the soundness of Rumsfeld's budgetary prioritizations. I suspect it may be time to recall Thomas Lehman to public service one more time, this time as Sec. Defense.

Add to that, the beauracracy is unwilling to make more nuclear weapons while our current ones age (President Bush has been the ONLY person in our ENTIRE government who wants to make more nukes). Thanks to leftists, commies and general assh0les within our government, we are unilaterally disarming. You said it, it is madmess.

[Paul_Denton]

I seen those images. The PLA soldiers and the government that commands them are no better than terrorists, they are nothing more than simple drones who have no regard for human life. They are simply evil.

[chilepepper]

23 amphibious assault craft would last about 5 minutes if a real war broke out. the 13 subs would be whittled down to perhaps 5 shortly thereafter.

13 subs ain't going to be enough...

[stuartcr]

Seems pretty weird to possibly be fighting a most favored nation.....

[houeto]

The next time you buy a cheap Chinese-made product at Walmart or a hardware store...

Hey, our U.S. Congress (both sides of the isle -sic) granted them MFN status. They know what they are doing.

[Paul Ross]

What ARE we doing with ships like the Kitty Hawk and the other 60k ton carriers?

Haven't heard precise plans for the Kitty Hawk, but the general outline of the Navy's "economizing" has been revealed:

Posted 02/28/05 12:53

U.S. Navy To Blast Retired Carrier in Tests
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

The U. S. Navy is going to do something this spring it hasn’t done since right after World War II: Sink an aircraft carrier.

But this time, the ship will be one of the Navy’s own.

The decommissioned carrier USS America, out of service since 1996, will be the target of tests designed to try out new defense and damage control systems for the CVN-21 carrier program. While old warships routinely have been sunk in recent years as targets or in tests, this will be the largest deliberately sunk by the Navy.

The Facts: FLATTOPS’ FATE

At more than 83,000 tons, the America (CV 66) will be the largest warship ever sunk. The largest warships sunk in combat are three Japanese vessels sunk in World War II; those ships displaced between 71,000 and 73,000 tons. Three earlier U.S. Navy aircraft carriers have been used in noncombat testing:
• Saratoga (CV 3) sank after an atomic bomb test in July 1946.
• Independence (CVL 22) survived the atomic blasts, but was sunk as a target in 1951.
• Reprisal (CV 35), an incomplete vessel, was used for a series of explosive tests from 1946 to 1948, and later scrapped.

Besides the America, the U.S. Navy has six other decommissioned aircraft carriers — none nuclear-powered — awaiting disposal:

• Oriskany (CV 34), to become an artificial reef.
• Forrestal (CV 59).
• Saratoga (CV 60), earmarked for possible museum use.
• Ranger (CV 61), earmarked for possible museum use.
• Independence (CV 62).
• Constellation (CV 64).
SOURCE: Defense News research

In fact, the America will be the largest warship ever sunk by any means, in war or peace.

The tests represent a rare opportunity for designers to try out systems on a major-league scale.

“If you don’t try out your ‘bangs’ against big objects, you’re not going to find out if they’re going to sink,” said Norman Friedman, a naval analyst and historian who has authored design histories of American and British carriers.

The bangs will cost big bucks: The Navy is spending $18 million in preparation and execution for the tests, expected to last from four to six weeks.

Designers of today’s 90,000-ton carriers are working from data developed from tests on World War II-era destroyers, the Navy said. Computer models based on those tests “are not validated” for carrier-size ships, the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said in a response to written questions. Using the America “as a surrogate for CVN 21 is an excellent opportunity to obtain the necessary full-scale data,” NAVSEA said.

“This is more carefully coordinated and instrumented so that information gained from those tests can be rolled back into future ship design,” said Capt. Lawrence Jones, head of the Navy’s inactive ships program. Jones oversees the disposal of old Navy ships.

The America will be packed with instruments, sensors and video cameras to monitor the effect of explosions near and on the ship. Exactly how the tests are done and what they show are closely-held secrets. Design data for aircraft carriers is top secret; even data from the most recent live-fire tests against carriers — performed from 1946 to 1948 — remain classified.

The Navy won’t reveal exactly where the America tests will be carried out, saying only that the location will be more than 50 nautical miles from the East Coast in water depth greater than 1,000 fathoms.

Among the tests to be conducted on the America, according to NAVSEA, are:

• Internal blast — A large warhead will be set off inside the ship to determine the effects of blast and fragments on the ship’s structure and equipment. Six old A-7 Corsair II aircraft will be placed around the ship to check the effects on planes.

• Underwater explosions — Explosive charges will be set off at varying distances from the ship to test the effects of “moderately severe” and “severe” explosions, NAVSEA said.

• Surface attack — Detonation of a surface charge near the ship’s hull.

• Scuttling — Finally, explosive charges will be placed inside the ship to sink it. Sensors will see how the ship floods throughout the process.

At the end, the ship “will slip quietly beneath the sea,” Adm. John Nathman wrote in a December letter to former America sailors while he was still vice chief of naval operations.

Why Sink Old Carriers?

The Navy has struggled to find ways to dispose of its old aircraft carriers. Until the late 1990s, they routinely were sold and broken up for scrap. In 1993, the Navy sold the 1940s-vintage carrier Coral Sea to a Baltimore, Md., scrapper.

The Coral Sea, with a full-load displacement of more than 65,000 tons, remains the largest warship ever scrapped. But after the scrapping turned into a seven-year fiasco, Congress required the Navy to stop selling its old ships and pay to have them broken up in an environmentally safe manner. Instead of receiving a few thousand dollars for old destroyers or cruisers, the Navy now pays millions to have the ships dismantled.

“It costs about $4 million to scrap a destroyer or cruiser,” which displaces less than 10,000 tons, Jones said.

But scrapping an 80,000-ton aircraft carrier is a much more expensive proposition. Jones said a study a few years ago estimated the cost to scrap the America at $60 million. Today, he said, the cost would be “$65 million to $70 million.”

The Navy has provided $20 million over 2005 and 2006 for ship disposal, Jones said — not nearly enough.

The Navy has turned increasingly to sinking its ships at sea rather than pay to have them broken up. Of 28 Spruance-class destroyers decommissioned since 1998, nearly half have been sunk or are planned for sinking. Only one has been scrapped.

While the America will be the first modern carrier “expended” at sea, the Navy already is planning to sink the World War II-era carrier Oriskany as an artificial reef off Florida’s Gulf of Mexico coast late this year or early 2006.

Artificial reef sinkings like the Oriskany’s, which do not involve live-fire weapons testing, are seen as beneficial by many environmental groups. The sunken ships attract sea life, and if sunk in shallow waters, attract sport divers.

“It’s a win-win situation,” Jones said. “I believe the best means for disposing of the carriers is by artificial reef.”

The Coral Sea’s sister ship, the Midway, found a home last year as a museum ship in San Diego, but private museum groups trying to financially support super carriers similar to the America find their prospects daunting. None have yet to succeed in raising the money or fashioning a successful plan.

“My long-term goal is to artificially reef the carriers,” Jones said, citing it as “the most cost-effective solution for the Navy.” •

E-mail: ccavas@defensenews.com.

COMMENT: We are thus scheduled to dispose of more carriers in the next two years, than we presently have the financial or industrial capability to replace in 20+ years. Sure looks like unilateral disarmament.