Yaryag undergoing work through 2004 in the Dalian Shipyards
Varyag after movement to another shipyard in 2005
Posted on 08/14/2005 6:00:25 PM PDT by Jeff Head
Is China building a carrier?
By Yihong Chang JDW Correspondent &
Andrew Koch JDW Bureau Chief
Hong Kong & Washington, DC
Chinese shipyard workers have been repairing a badly damaged ex-Russian aircraft carrier and have repainted it with the country's military markings, raising the question once again of whether China is pursuing longer-term plans to field its first carrier.
In the latest developments, images show that workers at the Chinese Dalian Shipyard have repainted the ex-Russian Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier Varyag with the markings and colour scheme of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy (PLAN). Additional new photographs show that other work, the specifics of which could not be determined, appears to be continuing and that the condition of the vessel is being improved.
JDW believes that PLAN technicians have also conducted thorough studies of the basic structure of the Varyag during the past few years to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the carrier's structural design. Former PLAN commander General Liu Huaqing stated in his memoirs that China had purchased blueprints for the carrier - a fact that Russian sources confirmed to JDW. Moreover, Gen Huaqing added: "The competent departments of the defence industry employed Russian aircraft carrier designers to come to China and give lectures."
Still, China's ultimate intentions for the Varyag remain unclear. One possibility is that Beijing intends to eventually have it enter into some level of service. A military strategist from a Chinese military university has commented publicly that the Varyag "would be China's first aircraft carrier".
(Excerpt) Read more at janes.com ...
Time for some ultra-steath cruise missles.. with anti-ship capabilities.. with the radar profile of a bird and birdlike attack profile.. so it seems like a bird.. call it the albatross.. that flys at night or day..
Here is the entire article from Jane's:
Jane's Defence Weekly
August 17, 2005
Is China Building A Carrier?
By Yihong Chang, JDW Correspondent & Andrew Koch, JDW Bureau Chief, Hong Kong & Washington, DC
Chinese shipyard workers have been repairing a badly damaged ex-Russian aircraft carrier and have repainted it with the country's military markings, raising the question once again of whether China is pursuing longer-term plans to field its first carrier.
In the latest developments, images show that workers at the Chinese Dalian Shipyard have repainted the ex-Russian Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier Varyag with the markings and colour scheme of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy (PLAN). Additional new photographs show that other work, the specifics of which could not be determined, appears to be continuing and that the condition of the vessel is being improved.
JDW believes that PLAN technicians have also conducted thorough studies of the basic structure of the Varyag during the past few years to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the carrier's structural design. Former PLAN commander General Liu Huaqing stated in his memoirs that China had purchased blueprints for the carrier - a fact that Russian sources confirmed to JDW. Moreover, Gen Huaqing added: "The competent departments of the defence industry employed Russian aircraft carrier designers to come to China and give lectures."
Gen Huaqing noted that "meanwhile, a certain amount of aircraft carrier design documents were also introduced into China, which helped [China] to make some progress in the preliminary research of the key equipment of [an] aircraft carrier. [PLA] Headquarters of General Staff and the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence organised constant analysis, evaluation and assessment of the related study trips, import projects and preliminary research programmes."
Still, China's ultimate intentions for the Varyag remain unclear. One possibility is that Beijing intends to eventually have it enter into some level of service. A military strategist from a Chinese military university has commented publicly that the Varyag "would be China's first aircraft carrier".
It is possible that the PLAN will modify the Varyag into a training aircraft carrier. A US intelligence official said the vessel could be made seaworthy again with enough time, effort and resources. However, US defence officials said that repairing the Varyag to become fully operational would be an extraordinarily large task. The carrier was about 70 per cent complete at the time of transfer and sensitive portions were destroyed, including damage to the core structure, before China was permitted to take possession. Given the difficulty and expense, it is questionable whether Beijing would pursue the effort only to use the Varyag as a training platform; such a move could, however, mark a transitional phase en route to a fully operational capability.
Another possibility is that China does, indeed, plan to repair the vessel to become its first seagoing aircraft carrier or use knowledge gained from it for an indigenously built carrier programme. The US intelligence official said such an outcome "is certainly a possibility" if China is seeking a blue- water navy capable of protecting long-range national interests far from its shores such as sea lanes in the Strait of Malacca. If this strategy were to be followed, China would have to reinstate the structural integrity degraded before delivery and study the structural design of the carrier's deck. These two activities, along with the blueprints and the ship itself, could be used to design an indigenous carrier. Such a plan would very likely be a long-term project preceded by the development of smaller vessels such as amphibious landing ships.
Despite the obvious controversy a Chinese aircraft carrier would entail, some US retired and active military officials say they are not troubled by the move as it would siphon off resources from other PLAN projects they view with greater concern. These include anti-access capabilities for use in a future conflict over Taiwan such as fielding more diesel-electric submarines, anti-ship cruise missile platforms and ballistic missiles with manoeuvring warheads that navy officials project could be capable of targeting US warships from sometime around 2015. Retired US Navy Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, an expert on the Chinese military and former US military attaché to that country, said it would be a little surprising if China were seriously pursuing a carrier as up to now Beijing has focused on improving its anti-access capabilities in a Taiwan crisis scenario - a situation in which a Chinese carrier would be of marginal value.
US defence and military officials were also sceptical, noting that fielding a Chinese carrier would be years in the making and entail significant time and resources far beyond just the vessel and its air wing. They noted, for example, that China would have to learn how to conduct integrated carrier operations with the rest of the fleet, including having to acquire the requisite escorts. It would also need to learn how to conduct maritime patrols away from shore and control those from the carrier. Past Russian and US experiences show these are not easily, cheaply or quickly accomplished.
Whatever the ultimate plan, the moves would appear to discredit China's original claim that Macao's Agencia Turisticae Diversoes Chong Lot Limitada purchased the Varyag with the intention of converting it into a 'floating casino'.
Using those carriers effectively is going to be a very long term issue for them.
I also agree that creating carriers siphons off resource...but according to their long term plans, if they do siphon off that resource, it just means that those long term plans include projection further and further from Chinese shores.
Finally, there is no doubt that they will continue with their aim of being in a position to force the issue over Taiwan. They are not illiterate. They can do pretty good math. If they are continuing carrier development and using the resources to do so, it is only because they have done the math themselves internally and figure that they can afford to do both IMHO.
I believe that economically we must find a way to throw a big wrench in their works.
Again, thanks.
Thanks for the ping!
All of the far-left, liberal, and MSM talk in the world about how we lost that world will never diminish the true facts. We won...and then we walked away leaving S. Vietnam to be overrun, despite our treaty obligation and despite the fact that the North blatantly broke theirs.
We cannot do the same to the ROC, IMHO. This time, it's not so much a treaty this time as it is our own act of congress. In many ways, that would even be worse IMHO.
"China would have to learn how to conduct integrated carrier operations with the rest of the fleet"
Nonsense. China will just wait for the next democrat American President to give them that information.
What most people don't know is that Hutchinson Whampoa (controlled by Li- Kashing - multi-billionare with strong ties to the Red Army command) owns the east and west ports in the Panama Canal.
Further, earler this year in defense of buying MiGs from Russia, the Venezeulan air defense minister stated that the purchase was made to "defense the Panama Canal." Why? So China has a clear path to the Atlantic and the Caribbean. Chavez keep moving toward Socialism with Chinese encouragment.
China is the gathering threat, but some here think they are simply an emerging capitalist society. Scary.
Per the Vietnam situation:
The lefties always argue that we'd never declared war, and so we had no legal obligation to remain engaged in that conflict. A "police action" doesn't compel us to accept the bounds of any treaty; rather, it allows us to temporize until we can wriggle out ofthe problem.
One can accept that argument if one ignores the moral aspects of obligations to allies.
I pray we make up ground by remaining true to the free people of the ROC, not to mention helping keep them free and protecting our own vital interests in that regard.
Just as with the Dutch and the English in centuries past, I fear our foreign policy will be directed by economic forces. I firmly believe that the suits in Washington will sell out any country--including our own--for profit. The rest of the world, and our posterity, will curse us for this.
I could say the same about a number of liberals who have risen to the top in the USN thanks to Comrade Bill Xlinton. (Turner, Barnett, etc) And unfortunately are still messing with junior officer's heads with insane globo-liberalism.
Yes, I am amazed you smuggled that photo out of San Diego...that is indeed one of Don Rumsfeld's Black Projects...his all-new, lighter, faster, meaner TRANSFORMATIONAL air craft carrier so he can mothball all of those wasteful and "obsolete" big ships....
Jackpot!
Just words. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. The U.S. naval building rate is now at the lowest levels in over a hundred years. The carriers are being underbuilt to sustain numbers as against age-related retirement. The planes on them are aging. Including the fact that there IS NO replacement for F-14. The "super" version of the F-18 just ISN'T. The Viking S-3 is also tired. Vernon Clarke forecast our Attack sub fleet could drop to 28 boats out of the current 55 in under 19 years if we don't get it in gear. Our ASW capability is dropping like a stone.
This is what we are going to wind up with if we don't stop contemplating our navels...and imagining that that alone is "Navel" superiority...
Not the only way. Submarines are a very real threat as well.
What I meant was that the Chinese have declared, and are preparing for, a cruise missle swarm attack on our carriers.
Not that this would ever happen, of course.
//I can only imagine a scene similar to the failed AAMRAAM attack against the alien ship in Independence Day: they fire all these expensive missles, the Aegis system pops them in mid-air, and communist jaws drop and they all go "Oh Oh."
Actually, the Communists...and I include the Russian Navy Brass in this, as they appear to be unreconstructed types...do have some tricks up their sleeves we don't have:
The Skval (underwater missile),
the Yakhont (300 km mach 2-3 sea-skimming cruise missile with evasion technique),
and pivotally of course in Air-to-Air: the AMRAAM...even the latest variants... is already out-peformed by the AA-10 and AA-11. At least that is the nominal verdict of the Indian air exercises.
LOL! Then, when they pushed the lever back, two navalized SU-33's lifted to the main deck on the elevators.
You are aware that ex-Admiral Stansfield Turner wants us to go down to only Two Hundred nuclear warheads. (Strategic and tactical) Two hundred altogether. Period. He believes in something he calls "existential deterrence". Apparently GWB has been using a lot of the rationale behind Turner's themes to do what he has been doing to reduce our strategic forces: Decommissioning all our MX's. De-Nuclearizing ALL B-1Bs. Cutting the force in half. Putting all the "eggs" in one bomber base basket. Cutting out four Tridents from the nuclear fleet.
When the RATS get back into the White House or Congressional control... and more-steeply cut still, the last cushion of deterrence will be gone. The Russians have retired only 5% of their SS-18 First Strike Weapon inventory. The RATS will disregard that and will likely fully implement the 200 weapon "stock pile"...the pathway will have already been paved for them...by our own side. Even Xlinton hadn't dared do that, but GWB, by having pompously done so opened the door to the next RAT to go for it...
I really have my doubts that China's carriers should be of concern. After all, they are a country that will soon see more shipping traffic than any country in the world (if not already). And it will likely increase in the coming years. Also, they already import more raw materials from around the world than America. And once again, likely to increase in the coming years. It is not unreasonable for them to be nervous about being choked off. So they are building a defense force able to protect the shipping lanes that come in and out of China.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.