Are we making too big of a deal about China's first aircraft carrier?

The China Teaching Web ^ | 8-12-2011 | Robert Vance

[robertvance]

On August 14th, 1912, the United States launched its first aircraft carrier, the USS Langley. This 11,500 ton ship served during both World Wars until its luck ran out near Java in 1942 and had to be abandoned and sunk in order to avoid capture by the Japanese.

Almost one hundred years later, China has just launched its first aircraft carrier and the U.S. State department is demanding to know why.

"We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment," said Victoria Nuland, a State department spokeswoman.

Let me give you the explanation, Victoria. China is the world’s largest country and has recently become the second largest economy behind the United States. China is also the undisputed powerhouse in Asia. Is that a good enough explanation for you?

[Fred Hayek]

The British developed not just the concept of the carrier, but also the catapult, the angled deck, among others.
The British however decided to go with the welfare state post WW2, thus resulting in the ongoing gutting of their navy and air force, which really started with the 1957 Defence White Paper. The debt incurred from WW2 did not help as well, since Britain was economically in bad shape after the war.
The US carriers of WW2 vintage (Essex class, Midway class) were better candidates for angled deck conversion since their hangar deck were not armoured boxes. Thus more deck edge lifts, higher plane capacity. The British did have their own design for a supercarrier with the CVA-01, however they could not afford it, no thanks to the burgeoning welfare state. And now they are reaping from that welfare state.

[Jeff Head]

Well, since this carrier, next to the US carriers and the French carrier, once it becomes ioperationally, will be the strongest carrier afloat...and probablyu next to the UKs carriers which are now building, and since the Chinese are already building two more at the same time in Shanghai, I'd say we'd best look around and give them consideration.

Over the last ten years they have developed new, modern, effective destroyers (DDGs) which are a lot like our own AEGIS destroyers with an effective SAPAR, AEGIS-like guidance and battle management system for their VLS missiles, effectiove new frigates, FFGs with VLS, new SSNs and now this new carrier.

THE NEW CHINESE AIRCRAFT CARRIER

I have been tracking their progress for the lasty eight years...and yes, we'd best take note. They are on a track to challenege us seriously in the WESTPAC in the next 5-10 years now.

THE RISING SEA DRGAON IN ASIA

[Jeff Head]

Not rushed at all. They have been meticuously working on it for a good 6-7 years. They have a long way to go to develop effective air operations...but they have the means, and they are building all of the platforms (including effective strike fighters). See my post above. 5+ years and unless we do something between now and then to regain our mementum, they will be pushing our buttons, and doing so in the WESTPAC.

[Oztrich Boy]

What’s a Drgaon?:^)

[Jeff Head]

That would be a typo for “Dragon”.

[TheOldLady]

Click the Pic!

Don't Make Me Open This Up On Ya!

Donate Today
End the FReepathon!

[lentulusgracchus]

It is 2011 not 1956. Change happens.

That's what Alaric and Geiseric said. Doesn't make it desirable in the least.

China-idolater, heal thyself, and get ready for when 1.3 billion people try to pass the Bering Sea to get at us and our wide-open spaces.

[ponder life]

Excellent posts!

I don't really see how his posts prove that China is being belligerent. Many countries have joint military exercises. And Chavez is Chavez. And China just wants his country's oil. Didn't the US once have good relations with Sadaam's Iraq? What was the goal...for the oil.

The originator of this thread (robertvance) isn't an apologist. What he is doing, is posting a politically sensitive topic in a forum where it is politically correct to demonize China. One only look at something like the recent crash of the high speed train in China.

A train wreck is a train wreck and something that should be seen as a tragedy. Yet, people on the freerepublic, who seethe at China's rise, gloated over this wreckage. Had a train wreck occured in say India, no one would have even have mentioned it.

The reality is (AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS), the originator of this thread is not making a political statement, he is just seeing life pragmatically. It is all the people who are indignant at his remarks at not demonizing China who are making the politically correct statements.

The reality is, if China built 10 carriers, it would be less, in proportion to her population and potential economic size, than Britain having one.

[buccaneer81]

I would love to see TDDUP, but it’s never been available in the US.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

What in all your experience, would make you believe the PRC would stop with 10 carriers?

To be “fair”?

Wake up America.

[buccaneer81]

If we want to stay ahead, we would divert all our money away from carriers into robotic ships with robotic planes.

No thanks. Ever see the Star Trek (original series) episode, "The Ultimate Computer?" Lessons to be learned there.

[tanknetter]

including effective strike fighters

Effective, vs what?

One would assume that the J-15 would suffer from the same limitations as the Su-33 (although there is some dispute that the J-15 is a direct reverse-engineering of the Sea Flanker). Specifically that the need to use the ski jump to get airborne imposes significant range and stores carriage limitations.

The Russians were prepared to accept these limitations because for them the primary role for the Brezhnev-class (now Kuznetsov-class) carriers were to provide defensive aircover for their missile shooters (such as the Kirovs and Slavas) which were their primary offensive platforms.

Attack, more specifically light attack (which is all the Su-33 is capable of) was a secondary consideration. Long-range medium/heavy attack wasn't even really on the table; the Sea Flanker's engines just aren't powerful enough, even when launching from the mid-ships position.

[ponder life]

...and probablyu next to the UKs carriers which are now building

You say that rather casually. And without any expection of people being alarmed. Yet, that is the realit of the how the Western world sees itself and how it sees other countries.

Britain is building two Queen Elizabeth class carriers, and it doesn't make news. Can even be an after thought. Yet China is 22 times bigger than Britain by population, builds one carrier, and people become alarmed.

If China was a developed nation (which she likely will achieve in about 30 years), a commensurate number of carriers with Britain would be 44 (forty four) Queen Elizabeth class carriers.

China, of course, doesn't need that many to defend herself. But I feel China has a right to build, say 8-10. Which she likely will do over the next 30 or more years. And proportionally speaking, will still be less than if Britain only commissions one Queen Elizabeth class carrier.

I get lamblasted everytime I say this, but much of the fear is based on a Western centric view of the world.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Are you a PRC disinformation agent?

[ponder life]

What in all your experience, would make you believe the PRC would stop with 10 carriers?

No claim of expertise. But what makes you think they'll go further. I go by what China already builds. Let take a look at tanks, bombers, surface ships, submarines, etc. Equipment, while outdated, they have built. But you don't see numbers anywhere near the former USSR. And China produces 4 times the steel that the former USSR did at their height. The former USSR, consumed only half as much energy as the US, but built a navy that was larger. China, on the hand, now consumes more energy than the US and the gap will only grow. Yet, you still don't see a navy that is larger than the US navy.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Not yet.

China at one time had a mind-bogglingly large navy.

With us sending so much money, technology and resources to China, I see no reason why China would not do so again.

We err greatly, attributing western thinking to China. China does not seek parity.

China seeks dominance.

[Jeff Head]

Numbers of weapons per population is not an effective measure of military projection.

The UK is building two carriers...but only one of them may get completed and commissioned...and then will have to wait several years before it has effective fighters to fly off its decks at this point.

The Chinese finished this one and are building two more as we speak. short of a massive melt down (which is possible) they will build them and field them very qquickly...and probably start two more right ehind that.

Such an occurance, with the additional military vessels to back them up...which they simulataneously are building and fielding, will upset the naval military balance in the WESTPAC significantly.

The issue will be what they do with them. Red China is stuill a totalitarian, Communist regime. They have figured out that the Mauist and Lenninst economic models do not work and have adopted more of a fascist economic model.

With any nationalist spirit developing amongst their populace and you have the potential for a very dangerous situation if it grows over a decade or two...think what Nazi Germany did...multiplied several times over.

\It took mots of the rest of the world to put the Nazis down. I hope we do not see iot go that far.

[ponder life]

Are you a PRC disinformation agent?

I'm not agent. And why do you resort to name calling and not address my numbers? They are real.

I am a United State citizen who want closer US/China relations. Period. And see China, while a foreign power, the same way many of you see Britain, also a foreign power.

I believe it will happen someday.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

I did not name-call.

I asked a question. A rather reasonable one.

[Jeff Head]

The Chinese J15 is able to launch, like the SU=-33 wth several thousand kilos of ordinance and still fight out to a 700km range or so.

With buddy stores they can extend that.

They will carry air to air and air to surface. Their version of harpoon type missiles in the strike role.

It will be many years before they are effecdtive in the blue waters against us. They will be more so in the China Sea under the umbrella of their land air.

But not so with other nations there in the WESTPAC. That's why India, Jpana, S. Korea and Australia are all scrambling now to get their own naval air developed and commissioned.