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
There is always one carrier going through major overhaul/refueling. That's a two year process that doesn't require an air wing.
As for the size, the old air wings had two fighter squadrons, two light attack squadrons of A-7s and a heavy attack squadron of A-6s. They now have 4 squadrons of F-18s so they can do more with fewer aircraft. Depending on the needs the carrier has 4 fighter squadrons instead of just 2. Or four attack squadrons instead of just 3.
The Yacht Club Wing of the GOP have always been wooden-gun defense-haters. They scream and yell about anything that raises their taxes -- even a DoD big enough to keep them from being executed by Soviet or Chinese purge teams.
Here is their take on defense and social problems:
They're rich, they're out of the rain, and
THEY. JUST. DON'T. CARE.
Unless, of course, it's about access capitalism.
No way does a Hornet lug as much ordnance as an A-6 used to. I'd tend to question that business about "more with less" -- more flexibility, maybe, but not more iron on the target. Plus, the A-3's went away, too.
No, but the F-18 carries the precision guided munitions that have come along after the A-6. It can do more with one or two smart bombs than an A-6 could do with its entire bomb load. The key is not how much ordinance you can carry but how much can you get on target in a single strike. Plus it can operate as a fighter when necessary, which an A-6 or A-7 could not.
I was aware of the overhaul periods, but I was always under the impression that the Air Wings had similar “down time” periods where they were in intensive training on land. I may have been wrong, but that was my understanding.
And when you said old air wing type, you weren’t kidding. The type I was familiar with had two squadrons of F-14s, two squadrons of F/A-18s and (I’m still fuzzy on this last one) one or two squadrons of A-6s. I think it was just one squadron of A-6s but I’m not sure.
Training for a carrier air wing requires a carrier. Where else would you get the requisite traps and catapult takeoffs? The navy as never in my memory had a 1 for 1 carrier to air wing ratio.
And when you said old air wing type, you weren’t kidding. The type I was familiar with had two squadrons of F-14s, two squadrons of F/A-18s and (I’m still fuzzy on this last one) one or two squadrons of A-6s. I think it was just one squadron of A-6s but I’m not sure.
The standard pre-F18 airwing had two squadrons of F-14s, two squadrons of A-7s, and a squadron of A-6s. Each of those had, if memory serves, 12 aircraft but a couple of the A-6s were tanker versions. They also had a squadron of E-2s and a squadron of EA-6s, each with 4 aircraft. And then they had a squadron of S-3s and a squadron SH-3s, each with 8 aircraft. I may be off on the numbers for each squadron but it made for a pretty full deck. Today's carriers have one less strike squadron and they've lost the S-3s as well.
Agreed that it takes a carrier to practice traps and launches, but wasn’t that what the Lexington (and wasn’t there another carrier assigned to take the Lexington’s place as a training carrier?) was for until recently? Everything else was done from shore, to the best of my knowledge. Granted, I never was more than a sideliner and never served, but it seems that there’s some seriously flawed logic in the way the Navy has been handled since Reagan left office.
Wait a second, I just caught that last part. The Navy did away with the S-3? WTH? When did this happen and what’s pulling ASW duty now?
About the same time as the F-14s and each carrier has a couple of SH-6 helicopters.
Those were used for training brand new pilots, not maintaining existing ones. Now I believe they send a fleet carrier off of Florida every so often and carrier qual them that way.
It makes zero sense to let a combat air wing rot on shore for two years while their carrier is in Newport News. One air wing for each operational carrier. Anything else is a waste of men and material.
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.