Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is China building a carrier?
Janes Defence Weekly. ^ | 8/25/2005 | Yihong Chang

Posted on 08/26/2005 5:52:25 AM PDT by Colorado Doug

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: Jeff Head

I like your remark about tyrannies....see my tag line!

I see a big problem on the horizon with the Chinese Navy. There is this reoccuring nightmare I have about their using nukes on our ships before entering into any other warfare; I wouldn't put it past them.


41 posted on 08/26/2005 9:26:07 AM PDT by Loud Mime (War is Mankind's way of ridding the world of the tyranny caused by liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hc87

Hiryu and Soryu were designed as carriers and were roughly contemporaries of the Yorktown class. Kaga was a conversion from a fast battleship and Akagi was a conversion from a battle cruiser.

I stand corrected, 2 of the 4 were conversions, not 3 as I stated.


42 posted on 08/26/2005 9:27:12 AM PDT by Zrob (freedom without lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
It is clear they are building a large, modern, blue water navy. There can only be one major power that such a navy is meant to, and will have to confront, and that is us.

They know it...and we know it. They are making their plans accordingly, as are we.

In the litoral waters around the Chinese coast and out to that first island chain, they are building the necessary sub force, surface force and air force to give us severe problems that close to their home. Taiwan, the Spratleys and numerous other strategic bottlenecks and locals all exist there that they will want to secure for thier growth towards heonomy and that we will want to deny them to secure our own passage and sea lanes and that of our allies.

I expect sometime just before 2010 there will be a test, a severe test, in that area unless the dynamics change significantly (ie., we cease our funding of their economic growth which is fueling their military growth, the Chinese people rebel and throw off the Communists...or, God forbid, a Hillary Clinton or someone of that ilk gets into the White House).

43 posted on 08/26/2005 9:31:19 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Zrob
Well, the PLAN has had the Varyag in their shipyardss for over three years, working on it. Recently they completely repainted it in the PLAN colors...

My guess is they xrayed the hull, worked through getting all of the rust treated, demagnitized her and then painted her up like new. To what purpose (training, further study, or actual complete refit) we do not know. But I do not believe that it will end up a casino.

44 posted on 08/26/2005 9:45:29 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Utter and complete strategic madness on their part if they do. They would be essentially repeating Germany's mistake in building the High Seas Fleet. And a Chinese blue water force will be just about as useful to them as the High Seas Fleet. Better to take the classic "land power" approach to sea power by building a maritime interdiction force the way France did the Germans did in WWI and WWII and the USSR did during the Cold War.


45 posted on 08/26/2005 10:04:53 AM PDT by hc87
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: hc87

That should be "the way France did during the Napoleonic Wars, the way the Germans did during..."


46 posted on 08/26/2005 10:06:22 AM PDT by hc87
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: hc87
They have much easier access to the high seas than Germany did...and they are already producing the blue water vessels in numbers (see the Rissing Sea Dragon site.)...much greater numbers than Germany did in WWII.

They are following more along the lines of the Japanese Imperial Fleet.

I believe they hope to have a democrat in the White House and then to present us with a multi-front scenario engineered by their surrogates before they ever test us head-on over Taiwan.

I pray I am wrong, but believe we must be ever vigilant and prepared, and that we should act now, economically and through military increases to avert it.

Just my opinion.

47 posted on 08/26/2005 10:13:42 AM PDT by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Colorado Doug

Wal-Mart Dollars at work.


48 posted on 08/26/2005 10:22:19 AM PDT by Petey139
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colorado Doug
Chinese shipyard workers have been repairing a badly damaged ex-Russian aircraft carrier

Talk about your short life span objects.

49 posted on 08/26/2005 12:19:13 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you try to be smarter, I will try to be nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hc87
Do you think that the Chinese are really going to invest the resources necessary to modernize and deploy two thirty year old hand-me-down Russian carriers? If

That is exactly what I was thinking. Gee how smart can these guys be if they buy a 30 year old RUSSIAN design.

50 posted on 08/26/2005 12:24:44 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you try to be smarter, I will try to be nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: hc87
Do you think that the Chinese are really going to invest the resources necessary to modernize and deploy two thirty year old hand-me-down Russian carriers? If

That is exactly what I was thinking. Gee how smart can these guys be if they buy a 30 year old RUSSIAN design.

51 posted on 08/26/2005 12:24:45 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you try to be smarter, I will try to be nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: hc87; All
uilding a maritime interdiction force

For those of you who don't speak Navalese, he means Submarines.

52 posted on 08/26/2005 12:26:06 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you try to be smarter, I will try to be nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

The ship doesn't matter as much as the aircraft. I don't dismiss this construction as ineffective. It's a projection of power in anybody's book.


53 posted on 08/26/2005 12:47:41 PM PDT by Loud Mime (War is Mankind's way of ridding the world of the tyranny caused by liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
The ship doesn't matter as much as the aircraft. I don't dismiss this construction as ineffective. It's a projection of power in anybody's book.

For about 30 seconds after war is declared, then it is a very expense casket.

54 posted on 08/26/2005 12:58:57 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you try to be smarter, I will try to be nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Gee how smart can these guys be if they buy a 30 year old RUSSIAN design.

Especially when they paid Clinton good money for more up to date designs.

55 posted on 08/26/2005 1:12:06 PM PDT by Colorado Doug (Diversity is divisive. E. Pluribus Unum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Zrob
Hiryu and Soryu were designed as carriers and were roughly contemporaries of the Yorktown class. Kaga was a conversion from a fast battleship and Akagi was a conversion from a battle cruiser. I stand corrected, 2 of the 4 were conversions, not 3 as I stated.

And actually, these conversions were mandated by the Washington Naval Conference of 1922. The Japanese would have had to dispose of these hulls if they didn't convert them. We did exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason with the Saratoga and Lexington. They were originally designed to be large battlecruisers.
56 posted on 08/26/2005 1:18:28 PM PDT by Antoninus (Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, Hosanna in excelsis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Colorado Doug

Especially when they paid Clinton good money for more up to date designs.</i>

Stay away from Ft Marcey Park C.D.! Telling the truth about a Clinton can be hazarous to one health! :-}


57 posted on 08/26/2005 1:19:55 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you try to be smarter, I will try to be nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag
That said, however, They can project a threat, credibly, to places like the Spratley's while the politicians and diplomats wail and moan ... and do nothing to stop modern-age Chinese imperialism.

China doesn't have to go to war. It can just bully its neighbors and restrict itself to short 'skirmishes'. The U.S. (or anyone else) would not have a chance to intervene, China would dig in, and the results would be accepted as moot. The same tactic would could easily be repeated.

58 posted on 08/26/2005 2:33:00 PM PDT by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Proud_USA_Republican; Blueflag

<< their "pilots are inept enough already, now they want them to try to do carrier landings ... >>

Why not? American military aeroplanes them with Naval "aviators" sitting inside!

Air Force Rules!

Per Ardua ad Astra!


59 posted on 08/26/2005 3:04:45 PM PDT by Brian Allen (All that is required to ensure the triumph [of evil] is that Good Men do nothing -- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Yup. As did the Brits with Courageous and Glorious. Basically if you wanted to be in the fleet carrier business in the 1920s, you did so by converting fast capital ships.

Which kind of raises another point on the Chinese getting into the naval aviation business. Only three nations have ever sucessfully accomplished fixed wing, flat deck carrier aviation and two of them are currently out of the business. What the Chinese don't have and are going to be hard pressed to develop on their own is that naval aviation history and experience. Good luck learning that without lots of time, money and blood.


60 posted on 08/26/2005 4:27:16 PM PDT by hc87
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson