China's Aircraft Carriers
-
Just for interests' sake, I was reading about aircraft carrier operators, and seems like China has been dabbling in buying old aircraft carriers for studies (HMAS Melbourne, Minsk, Kiev, and Varyag).
Ostensibly they are purchased for scrap or to convert into amusement parks, it took 9 years to transform the Melbourne to a pile of scrap metal, not before rumours that Chinese aviators used the flight deck and steam catapults to gain experience at sea.
It also took a while from purchase to amusement park for the Minsk and Kiev, though they are now what they claim to be.
The Varyag is still docked at a high securty Navy yard since its purchase a few years ago.
There's even more rumours that none of the three existing ex-Soviet carriers will see Chinese service - rather, China has three indigenously built aircraft carrier hulls soon to enter service. China has also bought maritime versions of the SU-30, lending further credence to this theory.
It appears that PLAN is well on its way to becoming a blue water Navy. -
Maybe for the invasion of Taiwan... THe reason why they couldn't do it in 1949 was because they have no navy to speak of...
-
I read from a China website(www.sinodefence.com) yesterday,saying that the PLAN will not be having an aircraft carrier any time soon due to technological and budgetary constraints. This is because the emphasis is now on Taiwan and getting a carrier now in their opinion does not help much in the invasion of Taiwan. Their argue that their navy should be concentrating on having better submarines to counter the USN carriers in the event of war with Taiwan. I also read about that the Western intelligence(www.janes.com) have recently discovered a new class of conventional submarines(which they named Yuan class) developed by the Chinese launched in Wuhan Shipyard.
-
What if Taiwan and China hurts each other so much..
and after that...both sides suffered serious damage...
then U.S.A moves in.. to occupy China?
I don't buy china-made home appliances in comparison to japanese-made
the quality still low.
Until the Chinese perfected the Art , i wouldn't trust much of chinese made aircraft carriers...of course lar..... -
they should make thousands of cheap cheap "made in China" aircraft carriers and ram Taiwan till it dislodges from the earth's crust and sinksOriginally posted by SibeiSuayKia:What if Taiwan and China hurts each other so much..
and after that...both sides suffered serious damage...
then U.S.A moves in.. to occupy China?
I don't buy china-made home appliances in comparison to japanese-made
the quality still low.
Until the Chinese perfected the Art , i wouldn't trust much of chinese made aircraft carriers...of course lar..... -
thier made-in-china aircraft carriers might sink even before reaching taiwan
-
The last time someone looked down on an Asian country, they suffered quite a bit for it.
I shan't keep anyone in suspense by letting you guys guess, so I'll just say that while the Japanese might have had the element of surprise when they launched the Pearl Harbor strike, but their subsequent advance and conquest of much of South East Asia sure debunked a lot of Western myths about buck-toothed, slant eye-ed, slopeheaded Asians and their ability.
The Allies underestimated the Japanese and paid dearly for it. -
Attack on Pearl Harbor in exchange for 2 atomic bombs?
no thanx -
Chinese Aircraft carriers... what a thought, for what??
Too expensive..
see Global Security writeup at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/art6-w04.htm
Maybe singapore can offer PLA as unsinkable aircraft carrier. -
too big for the ST shipyard..Originally posted by baer:Chinese Aircraft carriers... what a thought, for what??
Too expensive..
see Global Security writeup at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/art6-w04.htm
Maybe singapore can offer PLA as unsinkable aircraft carrier.
unless we build it in CNB..
Problem is...
China so huge, Will They Wanna Buy from SG anot?
They so smart, only probably buy blue print then zao liao.. -
I think there are still technical problem to solve for building the first Chinese carrier
1) Escort Fleet
Chinese has been for years dabbling in thinking of ways on how to attack US carrier should they be deployed in Taiwan Straits. I guess they would know the vulnerability of a carrier, without proper escort and logistical support. Currently, they are unable to provide good escort cover with the ships they have.
However, they are working towards this area with the new Chinese "Ageis" equipped ship
2) Carrier based Fighter/Bomber
Also there is the problem of the carrier based aircraft.... Not too sure whether SU-27 can fulfilled this role(Is Su-27 or Su-30 capable of launching in sea? Need some enlightenment).... A carrier without aircraft support is just a toothless, sitting behemoth in the sea.
3) Organisation
An aircraft carrier would require 1000+ sailors at the very least, 2000 would be the satisfactory size(am i rite?)..... I think the biggest ship in the Chinese fleet(the crusier from Russian) only carries like say 300-400 men... that's 5 times the scale that their organisation would normally operate with.... Just imagine the task to train the personnel
4) Technical
I think the difficulties lies in the catapultation system, aircraft storage system control, nuclear plant(assuming a nuclear powered carrier). But with the purchase of the retired carriers, this problem can be solved. Also I guess Russia might be willing to lend a hand if there is money to be made( but who can guess what the Russian is thinking). However, read from somewhere that the Chinese might also have problem in metallurgy area. The steel industries are still not up to the standard for this kind of venture
Conclusion
Just think of some of the problem I can figure offhand..... I am wondering what would be the possbilities of helicarrier(which I think might be a first step they might take). But the Chinese aim is to build a global fleet, no doubt, in the future. Chiinese Carrier will come, but not yet anytime soon( 20 years?).
One day, we might see the Chinese fleet in the region, just like Cheng Ho fleet many centuries ago -
The air arm of PLAN purchased Su-30MKK3 but wasnt reported if they were carrier capable. So far, of the Su-27 family, only the Su-33 is capable of carrier ops.
-
When you talk PLA, you better throw away all the notions about "people no enough".Originally posted by Ritterkreuz:I think there are still technical problem to solve for building the first Chinese carrier
1) Escort Fleet
2) Carrier based Fighter/Bomber
Also there is the problem of the carrier based aircraft.... Not too sure whether SU-27 can fulfilled this role(Is Su-27 or Su-30 capable of launching in sea? Need some enlightenment).... A carrier without aircraft support is just a toothless, sitting behemoth in the sea.
3) Organisation
An aircraft carrier would require 1000+ sailors at the very least, 2000 would be the satisfactory size(am i rite?)..... I think the biggest ship in the Chinese fleet(the crusier from Russian) only carries like say 300-400 men... that's 5 times the scale that their organisation would normally operate with.... Just imagine the task to train the personnel
4) Technical
I think the difficulties lies in the catapultation system, aircraft storage system control, nuclear plant(assuming a nuclear powered carrier). But with the purchase of the retired carriers, this problem can be solved. Also I guess Russia might be willing to lend a hand if there is money to be made( but who can guess what the Russian is thinking).
Conclusion
Just think of some of the problem I can figure offhand..... I am wondering what would be the possbilities of helicarrier(which I think might be a first step they might take). But the Chinese aim is to build a global fleet, no doubt, in the future. Chiinese Carrier will come, but not yet anytime soon( 20 years?).
Anyway, the Kuznetsov CV has a crew of 1,960 seamen, plus 626 aircrew, and 40 flag staff.
The Nimitz class CVN has a complement of 3,184 seamen, 2,800 aircrew, and 70 flag staff.
The Invincible class CV has a complement of 1089.
You can be sure the PLAN will have enough crew to staff any carrier they should purchase/build/modify.
Besides, the PLAN does not have any Cruisers. Not yet. The warship they purchased is a Sovremmennyy class DDG, with a maximum complement of 368.
The Russians will be more than willing to assist the PLAN in any way possible.
They have already sold them Kilo class submarines, Flankers, and of course those carriers.
Conclusion:
If China want to field a blue-water navy, they sure as hell can do it.
Remember the chinese proverb:
With determination, an iron pestle can become a needle. -
this brings to mind the debates generated during the inter-war years about huge, chunky battleships able to command a presence and dominate the seas vs sleek and fast commerce raiders able to disrupt commerce and bring an enemy to its knees...
as we all know, until effective countermeasures were found, german u-boats were infinitely more successful than the surface fleet ever could be...
not to mention that american subs were wrecking havoc in the pacific as well against japanese merchant shipping...
so is china aiming for a large, expensive, carrier based fleet to command a presence and project power? or are they going for the faster, sneakier alternative? my guess is a bit of both, but for now, more of the latter...
if they are projecting for an invasion of taiwan, do they need a carrier? no... they just need to blockade the straits and deal with the american carriers with tactics they have been developing all along...
whether they will succeed or not is anybody's guess... but a naval blockade against taiwan is a very real threat indeed and i think we all know that if it ever came to a matter of who could last longer, we're not gonna put all our money on taiwan...
so really... is it all about cruising across the straits, guns blazing, missiles overhead? i don't think so... nobody's that dumb... they'll be nothing left to conquer if it came to that. -
do you guys think that china will invade if not destroy taiwan when/if they declare independance?
invasion would be inevitable,IMO..but if they are not able to do that?wld they destroy taiwan? -
Well that depends, Until what kind of extent is Taiwanese army forces willing to defend TW, if fight until become rebel and vigilante forces ..
then when the PLA steps inside , its gonna be like Iraq for them..
if settle peacefully..no need to have the firing or any gun..
Just like how German Army WALKED inside one european country without firing a gun..before WWII started -
Yes, cos if Taiwan can declare independence, so can Tibet, Xingjiang and whatever states at China's fringes... Then China would disintegrate just like the former USSR. Remember China is not a homogenous country, a lot of people are trying to break away... That's why they have autonomous area...Originally posted by beavan:do you guys think that china will invade if not destroy taiwan when/if they declare independance?
invasion would be inevitable,IMO..but if they are not able to do that?wld they destroy taiwan?
Destoy Taiwan, with what? Missiles or nuclear? I can't see any purpose for doing that... International pressure would be too much...
IMHO, China's best chance is to subvert a pro-China minister into Taiwan's parliament and make him get elected as president, then 'invite' the PLA in...
-
i agree though, but it will still cost lives and cause a civil war right within taiwan..Originally posted by Cpl Ho:Yes, cos if Taiwan can declare independence, so can Tibet, Xingjiang and whatever states at China's fringes... Then China would disintegrate just like the former USSR. Remember China is not a homogenous country, a lot of people are trying to break away... That's why they have autonomous area...
Destoy Taiwan, with what? Missiles or nuclear? I can't see any purpose for doing that... International pressure would be too much...
IMHO, China's best chance is to subvert a pro-China minister into Taiwan's parliament and make him get elected as president, then 'invite' the PLA in... -
Taiwan might be China's nearest problem but it is not its only problem, the other issue that spring to mind are the Spratly Islands. Though China has in the past been involved in other territorial altercations with neighbours, Taiwan and the Spratlys are the more notable ones, and both involve the Navy.
Taiwan is still within easy land-based aircraft range, the Straits of Taiwan isn't very wide. And there are military bases aplenty dotting the coastlines.
Taiwan aside, the Spratly Islands are supposed to contain big reserves of crude oil and that would be attractive and justifiable for any sizable country in the region to claim. Seems like every country roughly near the Spratlys, bar Singapore, is posting some kind of claim to it.
China is pretty far compared to everyone else, I think its closest point would be the Hainan Island, and while it is powerful within a given radius from its land bases, Spratlys is just a little far off for easy access. A naval battle group centred on an aircraft carrier would enable a Chinese force projection into the region, though it is smaller than a US naval battle group, is bigger than anything else the ASEAN countries can offer up. In terms of military posturing without going to war, that'd be menacing enough already. Sabre rattling, if you may. China's sabre will rattle the loudest.
Sure, when the missiles and bombs start to fly, the US would play its "peacekeeping" role and swing either of its carriers in the Indian Ocean or from the Pacific Ocean into the region, but if they come in just to hammer the PLAN, fine and good. What happens after that? Whose side does the US take? They've just leveled the playing field, they have not solved the problem.
Someone mentioned that to be effective, three CVBGs are needed, one operational, one working up, and one in refitting, well that can arguably be for a global navy like the US is; for China, the time between the cycles can be shorter, plus its proximity to the area of concern is such that working up isn't going to be that complex a matter given that Chinese ports are close enough.
I guess, since the Spratlys are too small to contain any runway of a meaningful size, China may view an aircraft carrier as a mobile airbase for this region.
It would however be ironic, if, at the end of the day, Singapore is appointed to arbitrate the proceedings of pumping the Spratly oilfields, given it is the most neutral party in this region on the matter! -
Made-in China appliances are of lower quality because they cost less, are made from cheaper parts. It's not that they don't have the necessary know-how. Just that their market strategy is different from that of Japan companies'. Japan has a stranggle hold on the high-end market. China's strategy is to pry open the middle- and low-end market first, before targeting the high-end market. This strategy also works well for China's domestic market because their population is relatively not so rich.
We must understand the reasons behind the facts, before we draw conclusions based on the facts.
China has no problem building carriers. Afterall, China IS already the world's 2nd largest ship building nation (behind Japan), based on tons produced per year. The world's largest shipping line, Maersk, trusts made-in-China ships.
But the problem is how to arm, protect, and utilize the carriers.
1)China can arm the carriers, but maybe not to the tech-level of USA carriers.
2)China can adequately protect the carriers, except when going against navies from the most advanced countries (USA, maybe Japan, Russia, Britain).
3)China have zero experience of how to use an aircraft carrier. USA and other countries already have more than 60 years of experience.
So based on those 3 points (especially the 3rd point), it is pointless for China to pursue a carrier route. I believe that China has no intention whatsoever of building carriers for war purposes. Yes China wants to study about aircraft carriers (that's why they bought those retired carriers), but the main purpose is for devicing counter-carrier plans for now. For short term requirements, MAYBE China will consider having a few carriers, but not as a long term solution.
China will choose a navy-building strategy totally different from USA's aircraft-carrier based navy strategy. It's just a matter of time before aircraft-carriers become obsolete (like battleships) and a new type of fighting ships come into the picture.
Just my 2 cents. -
China also do not have experience in operating planes from carriers, especially taking off and landing at night in rough weather conditions. China probably need their navy to project forces in the south china sea, and at the most to the indian ocean to protect its sea lanes for crude oil imports. Use of airfields from Burma, Thailand, Vietnam will stretch the range of their planes by a long distance. There is really no need for china to use carriers.Originally posted by zhaozhilong:Made-in China appliances are of lower quality because they cost less, are made from cheaper parts. It's not that they don't have the necessary know-how. Just that their market strategy is different from that of Japan companies'. Japan has a stranggle hold on the high-end market. China's strategy is to pry open the middle- and low-end market first, before targeting the high-end market. This strategy also works well for China's domestic market because their population is relatively not so rich.
We must understand the reasons behind the facts, before we draw conclusions based on the facts.
China has no problem building carriers. Afterall, China IS already the world's 2nd largest ship building nation (behind Japan), based on tons produced per year. The world's largest shipping line, Maersk, trusts made-in-China ships.
But the problem is how to arm, protect, and utilize the carriers.
1)China can arm the carriers, but maybe not to the tech-level of USA carriers.
2)China can adequately protect the carriers, except when going against navies from the most advanced countries (USA, maybe Japan, Russia, Britain).
3)China have zero experience of how to use an aircraft carrier. USA and other countries already have more than 60 years of experience.
So based on those 3 points (especially the 3rd point), it is pointless for China to pursue a carrier route. I believe that China has no intention whatsoever of building carriers for war purposes. Yes China wants to study about aircraft carriers (that's why they bought those retired carriers), but the main purpose is for devicing counter-carrier plans for now. For short term requirements, MAYBE China will consider having a few carriers, but not as a long term solution.
China will choose a navy-building strategy totally different from USA's aircraft-carrier based navy strategy. It's just a matter of time before aircraft-carriers become obsolete (like battleships) and a new type of fighting ships come into the picture.
Just my 2 cents. -
US carrrier battlegroups can strike China at will. This is the only thing that currently keeps Chinese defence people awake at nights thinking up all sorts of ways to counter such a threat.
China still has no effective means to counterattack the US carrier battlegroups until they get within striking range.
The US has also successfully surrounded China with hostile pro-US countries like Taiwan, Japan and S Korea.
China currently have no way to similarly threaten the US mainland as a deterrence against US attacking China, without resorting to the nuclear option.
It is a checkmate situation and is like the old days when China got raped by Britain and Japan because China had a crap navy and couldn't defend against seaborne invaders until they arrived.
China today is easily the 2nd most powerful nation on earth in terms of size, population and wealth. Yet her army is still relatively outdated and her airforce and navy worst than tiny Singapore's.
China gets no respect even regionally from people like the Filippinos, Vietnamese, Malaysians over issues like Spratlys cos China got a joke of a Navy. Taiwan and Japan thumb their noses at China over independence or other territorial issues because China cannot cross the sea and reach out and touch them. (In fact, China's plan for invading Taiwan depends largely on airborne troops - a costly and ineffective way.)
That China does not need carriers is not true. That carriers are too costly for China is also not entirely true - China is rich enough to find the funds when it feels ready to field one.
The only thing holding them back is the complete lack of experience - not just as carrrier operators but to lose its fear of the seas and become a proper sea-going nation. The other thing is the lack of anyone too eager to assist them apart from the Russians. But the people who have operated carriers successfully since WW1 aren't the Russians. It's the US, Britain, Japan and Germany. -
Please...PLA 2.5 million army..Originally posted by tvdog:US carrrier battlegroups can strike China at will. This is the only thing that currently keeps Chinese defence people awake at nights thinking up all sorts of ways to counter such a threat.
China still has no effective means to counterattack the US carrier battlegroups until they get within striking range.
The US has also successfully surrounded China with hostile pro-US countries like Taiwan, Japan and S Korea.
China currently have no way to similarly threaten the US mainland as a deterrence against US attacking China, without resorting to the nuclear option.
It is a checkmate situation and is like the old days when China got raped by Britain and Japan because China had a crap navy and couldn't defend against seaborne invaders until they arrived.
China today is easily the 2nd most powerful nation on earth in terms of size, population and wealth. Yet her army is still relatively outdated and her airforce and navy worst than tiny Singapore's.
China gets no respect even regionally from people like the Filippinos, Vietnamese, Malaysians over issues like Spratlys cos China got a joke of a Navy. Taiwan and Japan thumb their noses at China over independence or other territorial issues because China cannot cross the sea and reach out and touch them. (In fact, China's plan for invading Taiwan depends largely on airborne troops - a costly and ineffective way.)
That China does not need carriers is not true. That carriers are too costly for China is also not entirely true - China is rich enough to find the funds when it feels ready to field one.
The only thing holding them back is the complete lack of experience - not just as carrrier operators but to lose its fear of the seas and become a proper sea-going nation. The other thing is the lack of anyone too eager to assist them apart from the Russians. But the people who have operated carriers successfully since WW1 aren't the Russians. It's the US, Britain, Japan and Germany.
singapore 250,000 troops..10 TIMES..
U NEED TO KILL 10 TROOPS BEFORE U die hahahahaha..
good luck =D
unless we start to import chinese soldiers and ask them to defend singapore.
Hah, their airforce weaker? much tougher then SG , cause they are both upgrading using israeli avionics and stuff , was reported last time they had "Python" Missiles, if SG challenge china in terms of aviation industry...they can produce as many planes as we want..whereelse..
we have to ship using FOB terms during war time.
Their Soveremmy is nuclear armed. our stealth warships ain't
British carriers , furthest EVER MAJOR combat deployment othen then Iraq battles and cold war stuff, was the falklands war..only travelled not very far also
Germany's carrier oso didn't go around the world like what USA did.
Her airforce and navy quantity really really huge, only bad thing is that..
USA doesn't want any european or israeli to help them..
WIth "phalcon" awacs radar.. -
Eh.....the only German carrier I noe of is the WWII era's Graf Zepplin which was nv completed,let alone put into service.....so how can the Germans have any experience in operating aircraft carriers?Far as I noe,the Japanese last operated aircraft carriers in WWII.....can that experience be relevant 2dae?
-
yup, hardly any change...except for missiles, watch out for it, more acurrate and lethal, aircraft carriers is still more or less same use, sent out floating airbase to places that your own standard airfields and aircraft cannot reach without refuelling like USA to iraq.