Posted on 12/18/2010 8:08:10 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Documents Confirm China's Aircraft Carrier Plans
China is planning to build an aircraft carrier according to documents seen by the Asahi Shimbun. The Japanese daily on Thursday quoted the Institute for Ocean Development Strategy, a think tank under China's State Oceanic Administration, as saying in a recent report that Beijing "conceived the idea and worked out a plan in 2009 to build an aircraft carrier."
This shows that China "is determined to become a maritime power," the report said. "The task is essential in achieving the great revival of the Chinese nation."
The plan has been an open secret, but there has been no official confirmation so far. Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie in March last year said China is the only one among the world's big powers that does not have an aircraft carrier, adding this state of affairs "cannot continue forever."
China is believed to be building two 50,000-60,000-ton aircraft carriers at Changxingdao Shipyard, the world's biggest, in Shanghai and is expected to launch one in 2014.
The Varyag, an aircraft carrier from the former Soviet Union, is being remodeled at China's Dalian Port.
It is also reportedly working on remodeling the 58,500-ton Varyag, an aircraft carrier the former Soviet Union had stopped building, at Dalian Port to launch it in 2012. The country is expected to get a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier by 2020.
The Japanese government's new defense white paper to be published on Friday will reflect worries about China's buildup of maritime power.
englishnews@chosun.com / Dec. 17, 2010 11:49 KST
It must be true when they say the military is fighting the next war with obsolete weapons. Aircraft carriers is one big fat target for cheap missiles.
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Lets see ‘em handle this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=4gGMI8d3vLs
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=S0yj70QbBzg
Instead of a car and people.....
.....we get to see a "Chinese Fire Drill" with an aircraft carrier and planes.
China is a very large country with dang near unlimited resources and the will to use those resources to accomplish their ends. And they don’t have to waste time with the messy intervention of amateurs (read: Congress) in the decision-making process.
They may be using old samples, but they will probably update them in ways we can’t predict.
We underestimate China at our peril.
A CV by itself may not seem like a good platform, but consider this. Each American CV(N) is carrying around 90 combat aircraft capable of neutralizing most targets within their range. Those targets that are out of range of these aircraft still have to contend with the carrier’s escorts, which usually consist of one or two guided missile cruisers, two to three guided missile destroyers and one or two nuclear submarines. I don’t know if modern carrier battlegroups stil contain an anti-submarine frigate or not, but the central point remains the same. Attacking a modern carrier is nearly suicidal unless you do so with massive numbers of weapon systems.
Carriers are still large targets, but not nearly as easily destroyed as you seem to think. There’s been several times in the past that the Carrier has been written off as obsolete because of submarines and missiles, but they’re still here.
People still discount the carrier’s strike power. The F/A-18E/F can fly hundreds of miles from the carrier and launch missiles with ranges from 90+ miles to take out ships.
That said, our carrier air wings are not what they were just 25 years ago. The number of aircraft is down from that 90-aircraft figure to closer to 70. In air-to-air combat, the US Navy no longer can claim the type of dominance it had when it had F-14D Super Tomcats on board. The Super Hornet does not compare favorably to the Super Tomcat in most measures of performance, especially combat radius. The latest Sukhois are a match for the performance of the Super Hornet and the USN only enjoys superiority due to the quality of naval aviators.
This is unfair to those naval aviators and could put them in the same position as their predecessors who had to fly against the Japanese Zero in the F4F Wildcat at the outset of WWII...
They had their change in the 15th century with Chengo-Ho; and they pissed it away. They wont get it back.
Chinese naval tech vs Spanish naval tech at the time.
Why did we retire the Super Tomcats again? That seems a little...stupid to say the least.
Furthermore, what’s up with reducing the number of aircraft in the Air Wings? Is it just a matter or replacing the Tomcat Squadrons or is there something else going on?
Nice video.. appreciated it.. Thanks..
your cheap missiles can only knock them out... if you know they are there in the first place.
our sub net has loads of holes after 3 years of no funding.
and we rely heavily on our satellites for reconnaissance... and the chinese have already demonstrated the ability to knock down orbiting satellites from the ground.
as for those saying china wouldn’t attack us... b*llsh*t.
I agree 100%.
Galleons began to be built about the same time and to similar or larger dimensions. The Scots built the Great Michael in 1511; she was 250' long.
Still, that big Chinaman would have made quite a stir if she'd dropped anchor in Cadiz harbor.
To prove that "Big Dick" Cheney had tons of swing and could beat up Grumman.
It was a squabble over a projected next-gen Tomcat project. Cheney (with Poppy Bush's nod) killed it -- and ordered the dies cut up -- to make a point. To make a point. Guess that means more in Bushworld than "the future security of the United States".
There were at least three designs left on the drawing-board for follow-on "improved" Tomcat designs when he did that.
>>There were at least three designs left on the drawing-board for follow-on “improved” Tomcat designs when he did that.<<
I loved the Tomcat — but part of me wondered whether VG was worth the complexity, given the performance profile of modern fixed-wing jets.
But I don’t design jets for a living, I just admire them from afar...
They're reducing the number of carriers so they're cutting the number of air wings. Eleven carriers, ten air wings.
I wasn’t aware that he had that done. I’m losing more and more respect for that man, especially as I learn more about what he did under Bush 41 to gut the Navy.
That’s not what I was talking about, but even that is interesting. I was talking about the total number of aircraft per Air Wing, not the total number of Air Wings. This may be the first time that I’m aware of though that the Navy had more Carriers than it did Carrier Air Wings.
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.