All About The Chinese Aircraft Carrier Thread

[MIGleader]

This thread is basicly a cumination of multiple scattered one througout this forum and the old one. What ship will be the first carrier, what planes should it hol and how many, how will it be armed, what combat system it will feature, which ships and subs would escort it, how it will be deployed, how long it will take to complete and the cost...and the overal effectiveness of this new force.

[BrotherofSnake]

China should repair the Varyag and use it.

[MIGleader]

please elaborate whaen u post, not one liners. i want this topic to develop, not to hit a dead end when someone starts talking bout nukes...

[jackbh]

I for one does not want to see China invest the money and time on a carrier. A good carrier force takes too long to develop. By the time China has a respectable carrier force, the aircraft carrier would have been obsolete. They should concentrate on how to destroy a carrier rather than how to build one.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I for one does not want to see China invest the money and time on a carrier. A good carrier force takes too long to develop. By the time China has a respectable carrier force, the aircraft carrier would have been obsolete. They should concentrate on how to destroy a carrier rather than how to build one.

Cruisers with ultra-long range sea-skimming hypersonic anti-ship cruise missiles will be the future of naval combat.

[jackbh]

Yes, China should put it's money and research into building an advance missle cruiser. That would be alot cheaper than acquiring a carrier.

[swimmerXC]

am i just hallucinating or is that a FLANKER and little people on the deck? :eek: :D
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/1601/varyag156fp.jpg
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/1601/varyag156fp.jpg

[bd popeye]

am i just hallucinating or is that a FLANKER and little people on the deck?

Flanker? :eek: That I don't see. :cool: But I do see people. Probaly PLAN types surveying the work. Or shipyard workers doing their thing.

MIGleader sugguested that the ship may have a combat system. Some sort of PAR I presume? :confused: . PAR would defently be needed as long as the PLAN has a limited number of escorts. It should also defently have CWIS. Perhaps type 730. Four of them one on each quadrant. I do not know what type of surface to air missiles to install. But they will be needed.

As too the number and type of aircraft. I need to do some reserach on that.

[ordinary dude]

To the chinese people, a chinese CBG sailing the high seas will be an huge boost to the chinese morale and deal a big blow to the percived veiw of western superiority. But at this time, China doesn't have the financial resources to procure such an expensive showcase trophy. And I believe the age of carriers as trump card in warfare is coming to an end. With missiles becoming more accurate and deadly, the carriers will become simple target drones unles they are always protected by a fleet of support vessles. China cant even field modern destoryers in large quantaties (Japan has more destoryers). Look at india, brazil, or Thailand, those carriers are just trophies that vie for bragging rights. China dont need more showcase items, she needs a well rounded navy that can exploit the weaknesses of foreign navies, we dont need to copy an US CBG to defeat one, and even if we do defeat one, they still have 11 more.

[TJJH]

I believe that the aircraft carrier still has its uses, but it should no longer be the centrepiece of the Navy. I envision a PLAN fleet to be based around the combined firepower of missile cruisers and submarines with protection in the form of destroyers and air cover provided by a sole carrier. That carrier while being the main source of intimidation will also be the place from which the Command and Control and major meetings will be held.

[IDonT]

I believe that the aircraft carrier still has its uses, but it should no longer be the centrepiece of the Navy. I envision a PLAN fleet to be based around the combined firepower of missile cruisers and submarines with protection in the form of destroyers and air cover provided by a sole carrier. That carrier while being the main source of intimidation will also be the place from which the Command and Control and major meetings will be held.


The main reason why a carrier is the centerpiece of any navy is because the tremendous amount of firepower it can carry and its flexibility. Missile cruisers are limited by its magazines and ammunition types. A sovremmeny destroyer is good against surface ships, not against anything else. Those sunburn cannot hit land and sea targets. In fact, the Sov is not as good in ASW, AAW, and strike as it is in anti-ship. Then once its compliment of 8 sunburns are fired, it has to go home and reload.

US navy destroyers are a little more flexible thanks to the VLS. It can tailor suite its ammo load for its mission. However, it still does not have the firepower of the carrier. It is impossible to reload weapons at sea. Aircraft carriers reload their plane ammo and fuel all the time. (it is easier).

Think of it this way:
A USN carrier is many times more powerful than its escorts.
The Indian carrier Viraat carriers more firepower than the entire IN eastern fleet.
France Carrier is more powerful than its surface fleet.

To sum it up, China needs a carrier.
Carriers have longer strike range, more flexible, longer endurance, and give you pure intimidation factor.

[Gollevainen]

The most uring reason for PLAN to have carrier is the fleet airdefence. Flyable interceptors are still the best way to confront enemy areal threat and multible exampels have proven the infexibility of land based aircover for fleet air defence. After the fleet have balanced umbrella over its head, it can properly function against modern naval components.

[Sczepan]

am i just hallucinating or is that a FLANKER and little people on the deck? :eek: :D
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/1601/varyag156fp.jpg
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/1601/varyag156fp.jpg

L15上舰了 ??? :confused:

[bd popeye]

IDont is so right. An aircraft carrier is so powerful. An USN CVN can conduct air strikes 24 hours a day for 3-4 days before it need to be replenished with munitions and fuel for it's planes. It is a mobile platform that can move several hundred miles in a single day. No other surface ship can accomplish sustained firepower for this amount of time. That is why the CVN is the centerpiece of a navy.

The Carrier Mission

To provide a credible, sustainable, independent forward presence and conventional deterrence in peacetime,
To operate as the cornerstone of joint/allied maritime expeditionary forces in times of crisis, and
To operate and support aircraft attacks on enemies, protect friendly forces and engage in sustained independent operations in war.

And I believe the age of carriers as trump card in warfare is coming to an end. With missiles becoming more accurate and deadly, the carriers will become simple target drones unles they are always protected by a fleet of support vessles.

Unless a missile is developed that has a conventional warhead capable of sinking a carrier that will not happen.

...we dont need to copy an US CBG to defeat one, and even if we do defeat one, they still have 11 more.

True!!! Plus 12 LHA/LHD type ships....

[walter]

And I believe the age of carriers as trump card in warfare is coming to an end. With missiles becoming more accurate and deadly, the carriers will become simple target drones unles they are always protected by a fleet of support vessles.

There is of course the other side of the equation. Missles are becoming more accurate and deadly, which is why missles can be used to shoot down missles. Missle defense is more or less in its infancy, in a decade or two we will probably see US carrier groups equipped with some sort of directed energy missle defense system, possibly a combination of lasers and microwave weapons. Such a system combined with the ever evolving kinetic energy kill systems will prove very difficult for even an advanced attack missle with evasive capabilities to defeat.

[swimmerXC]

is the L15 out yet... i dont think so
it looks to me like a flanker colored in that blueish/teal color

[Su-27 Pilot]

China should repair the Varyag and use it.

And use it ?? PLease think that PLAN's has plan for new carriers which will better. PLAN will not repair some old trash and use it.

[PLABUDDY]

And use it ?? PLease think that PLAN's has plan for new carriers which will better. PLAN will not repair some old trash and use it.
what do u mean trash?? do u know what varyag can do to u once complete?? It can blow up ur house sky high!! So plz watch what ur saying.

[MIGleader]

varyag may be a bit trashy, but it represents a fater, cheaper way to get a carrier. after its commisioned, you can build your own carrier.

the "flanker" on deck looks more like a j-8, but the blur is so bad it could be anything.

why would the plan not have enough ships to escort a carrier? by the time on is commisioned, they will have 13 modern destroyers, 14 modern frigates, facs, and a whole ton of new subs.

as for the battle system on board, if the plan uses varyag, skywatch is a possibility. it is on kutznev, so buying the system and possibly improving it wont be too hard.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

varyag may be a bit trashy, but it represents a fater, cheaper way to get a carrier. after its commisioned, you can build your own carrier.

the "flanker" on deck looks more like a j-8, but the blur is so bad it could be anything.

why would the plan not have enough ships to escort a carrier? by the time on is commisioned, they will have 13 modern destroyers, 14 modern frigates, facs, and a whole ton of new subs.

as for the battle system on board, if the plan uses varyag, skywatch is a possibility. it is on kutznev, so buying the system and possibly improving it wont be too hard.

What modern destroyers and frigates are you talking about? For destroyers, China might have 8 or 9. For frigates, maybe 4.

[MIGleader]

2 luhu, 4 sovs, 1 luhai, 2 52b, 2 52c, 2 51c

4 54 and 10 jiangwei two.

not too bad
maybe they'll buy a slava too.

[Jeff Head]

2 52c
From recent pics, it looks like there may be a third 52C.

[PLABUDDY]

what? They are already equipping Varyag with planes?

[MIGleader]

a third 52c?? can anyone give me a pic?

remeber, varyag is a missle cruser at heart, so it does not need as many escorts as indias carrier. the carrier has more missles than any one of its escorts. of courese, the chinese may take put the missles to add more planes.

[PLABUDDY]

a third 52c?? can anyone give me a pic?

remeber, varyag is a missle cruser at heart, so it does not need as many escorts as indias carrier. the carrier has more missles than any one of its escorts. of courese, the chinese may take put the missles to add more planes.
Answer my question? Plz friend?

[MIGleader]

fine. the pla has not boght any planes for its carrier yet, as far as i know. i dont think a deal like this will be kept secret. perhaps the russians sent over a sea flanker for trials, but no major buys have occured.

[Jeff Head]

i dont think a deal like this will be kept secret. perhaps the russians sent over a sea flanker for trials, but no major buys have occured.

Agreed, it would not, and probably could not be kept secret.

[sumdud]

I know China are getting 2 more Sovs and that they are getting DDG 180 and 181, but a 3rd 52C?!

For the carrier: About 40 planes, like the French, much more people efficient than US CVNs. Z-8s are bound to be onboard, long range SAM, new torpedoes(I hope.)

I can't say if Varyag is going to become a CV for China, but I think China should start with a LPH.

[Sczepan]

....I think China should start with a LPH.
China should build a Amphibious Carrier for power projection first; for anti-terrorism, Naval patrol, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance, and amphibious invasion, the China PLA Navy needs several Amphibious carriers.
The amphibious fleet is useless without local airshield, without support by attack helos (and the carrier also should carrie transport- and sub-hunting helos, subs ar a big threat to amphibious fleet) and ground attack planes.
I say amphibious - not only helo carriers, because I vote for some catapults there to be use by light training- and attack aircrafts like the L-15, which also has six (four under-wing and two wingtip) pylons to carry various air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.
This aircraft could be used to get carrier qualification by amphibious carriers (without obstructing the big carrier) and if necessary, it can serve for lightweight attack role in amphibious operations.
Also the JL-9, also known as FTC-2000 Mountain Eagle (ShanYing) training aircraft has five storestations (one under fuselage and four under wings), and is capable of carrying 2,000kg weapon payloads such as short-range air-to-air missiles and rocket launders and bombs. The Fixed weapon includes a 23mm cannon. So this plane could do the same job - trainee carrier pilots and serve for lightweight attack role in amphibious operations.
But to use these kind of helos and aircrafts, the PLAN need amphibious carriers.

[bd popeye]

For the carrier: About 40 planes, like the French, much more people efficient than US CVNs. Z-8s are bound to be onboard, long range SAM, new torpedoes(I hope.)

More people efficent than a USN CVN? What?:rolleyes: In the old forum I explained why there are so many crewmembers on a USN CVN. ..

1. A CVN is the center piece of a CSG(Battle group)The CV suppourts the entire battle group. There are medical,techinal, maintance faclities on board a CVN that suppourt the entire CSG. Nuclear power plants are generally manned at 100+ %. A USN CVN is a extremely complex vessel that requires a large crew for upkeep while at sea.

In the next class of CVN the USN will reduce the crew size. This will also occur to a lessor extent on CVN-77.

[Sczepan]

its to bad - I can't post pix anymore ....
so http://www.centurychina.com/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi/plaboard/?cmd=get&cG=33732353231353&zu=33373235323135&v=2&gV=0&p=

[bd popeye]

its to bad - I can't post pix anymore ....
so http://www.centurychina.com/cgi-bin/anyboard.cgi/plaboard/?cmd=get&cG=33732353231353&zu=33373235323135&v=2&gV=0&p=

Thanks for that link. The pic of the Varyag is very good. Looking at the flight deck as compared to older pics it is apparent that some major work has been done. Unless those pics are "PS". I don't think they are.

Humm??:confused:

Will the PRC soon have an CV or LPH?? Does anyone know for sure?

Sczepan, Why can't you post pics anymore?:confused:

[Sczepan]

Sczepan, Why can't you post pics anymore?:confused:
"pop up window is blocked" :confused:
need my son :( well, born in 1950, seems I am to aged to work with this modern instruments :rolleyes:

[bd popeye]

"pop up window is blocked" :confused:
need my son :( well, born in 1950, seems I am to aged to work with this modern instruments :rolleyes:

OMG! Someone in this forum older than I!:)

Not to get off topic but many times I tried to post in this forum only to have all sorts of technical difficulties. I've lost about 75 post. It comes and goes. Your problem could be related to your server. For instance my server won't let me use those picture posting sites. Don't know why.

If you have any more recent links to the Varyag please post them for all. As everone wants to know about a PLAN CV or LPH!

[Sczepan]

....
If you have any more recent links to the Varyag please post them for all. As everone wants to know about a PLAN CV or LPH! I've a collection of some varjag-pix, starting in Ukrajinia - passing Bosporus - and at least some years in Dalian ..... its a nice development, but most of the pix we should had in the old forum .....
but to compare a look at the flight deck inside the drydock : see http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/aircarrier/aircarrier4.asp

[Sczepan]

Thanks for that link. The pic of the Varyag is very good. ....

There is a new pic
http://www.china-defense.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3981&st=775

[MIGleader]

can u post that pic? i dont have mebership to china defese, though i may want to do so...

[Sczepan]

I'll lookto post it here http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=529 - but about the chinese carriers:
China will have blueprints of 3 different carriers:

1 CV Varjag, http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=529 and
2 CVH Kiew and Minsk - escort carriers (jeep carriers) http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=26
3 LHA(R) Melbourne - amphibious Carrier
(to compare: http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.mhtml?d=81827 )

I bed, whenever the Plan need carriers, they will use these blue prints and redesign these ships as first steps (if not using the original first ....)

[Jeff Head]

can u post that pic?

See HERE (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=529)

[Jeff Head]

I'll lookto post it here

I have a thread with new pics HERE (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=529)

[Sczepan]

article about China's long history of attempting to get aircraft carriers:
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/history4/62/20060111/13021330.html

[bd popeye]

article about China's long history of attempting to get aircraft carriers:
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/history4/62/20060111/13021330.html

Ahhh..hummm...:( that site is in Chinese..I think:confused: ..So could you or someone post a translation? Thanks!

And does anyone have any up to date info on what type of aircraft the PLAN may fit on the CV?

[Tommy Gun]

That carrier will be used for training purposes i suspect, it will take many years of training to develop the skills to operate it efficently.

Using it for training purposes is also sensible, if PLAN are working on their own carrier designs. maybe they are cloning it :D :D

Basic training and something to have a widley publicised cerimony for once it launches sound good to me.


btw

Anyone want some pics of the new RN Carrier as it develops ? my house overlooks the shipyard where its being built, im gona try and get a time lapse thingie of it setup.

THis one http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1971.html

[PiSigma]

wow.. you live in such a great place.. i wish i get to watch the navy build ships.. so yes.. please take pictures so we can all watch it's progress.

[renmin]

I found this on a Chinese site. Its a plan of China's aircraft carrier, they call it Project #81
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/up/up/2006162312200.jpg

[MIGleader]

My my...are those RAMs is see next to the 730s?
i like the look of the j-10s
where, exactly, did you find this pic?

anyways, this article is a terrfic read. it has most of the information we already know, but goes very in deph:
http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_oct00sav01.html

[bd popeye]

My my...are those RAMs is see next to the 730s?
i like the look of the j-10s
where, exactly, did you find this pic?

anyways, this article is a terrfic read. it has most of the information we already know, but goes very in deph:
http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_oct00sav01.html

Yea where did you get that pic? Please post a link! Very nice indeed!:china:

As for that article..Miggy..dude that page requires a log in..so can you just copy and paste it since you are already signed up for that web page? Thanks!

[Gollevainen]

My my...are those RAMs is see next to the 730s

To me they look more like those rocket/decoy launchers onboard latest PLAN ships...

But anyway, this pic is great, wonder if there is anothers from different angle so that we could speculate even more about the possiple size of the ship and everything else related...

[MIGleader]

As you wish Popeye...i must warn you it is very long

Quote:

Dragon's Dragonfly: The Chinese Aircraft Carrier
By Vijay Sakhuja *

There is little doubt that People's Republic of China is engaged in an aggressive naval acquisition programme aimed at modernisation of the PLA Navy. A variety of advanced ships, submarines, aircraft, missiles and electronic warfare equipment have been added to the naval inventory. These acquisitions have been a matter of concern among several Asia Pacific countries who fear that China is building an aggressive naval posture to influence events in the region. Some have even suggested that the modernisation process has heightened regional anxiety and raised tensions. The ongoing naval acquisition clearly indicates that China is pursuing an assertive maritime policy. Towards that end the debate over acquisition of an aircraft carrier has become central in the minds of Chinese naval strategists and practitioners.

It is no more a secret that Beijing is keen on acquiring an aircraft carrier. This keenness is familiar to even the most casual China watcher. Interestingly, the 'dragonfly' 1 has touched the hearts of both the leadership and the general public who have even suggested that if China wants to be a great power, it must possess an aircraft carrier. A review of events over the past two decades indicate that Chinese naval planners have been window shopping for an aircraft carrier in the 'shopping malls' in Latin America, Australia, Europe and Russia. Besides the indigenous capability to build the vessel is also being explored which has added to the 'build' or buy' debate. Whether China' builds' or 'buys' an aircraft carrier, the question still remains how the induction will influence the balance of naval power and the security environment in the Asia Pacific region.

This paper examines the Chinese aircraft carrier acquisition plans. In doing so, it discusses in detail the various vessels that China has purchased as scrap and those that it has been interested in. The paper also highlights the type of aircraft carrier that fits into the Chinese naval doctrine and efforts made by the PLA Navy in training its officers for carrier operations. The acquisition of the carrier is bound to change the strategic balance in the Asia Pacific region. Towards that end, the paper highlights the implications of such acquisition on the regional security environment as also its implications for Indian security.

Aircraft Carrier in Strategic Thought

The Chinese naval strategists and practitioners have long argued that an aircraft carrier is an important element of any blue water naval force structure. Without the carrier, any ocean going taskforce is limited in its area of operation, due to non-availability of air cover. They argue that a carrier with 40 aircraft on board can provide the combat effectiveness of about 200 to 800 shore based fighters for air defence. Besides, the carrier is able to provide cover at least fifty times larger than that provided by any other surface combatant. 2 In the context of China, with territories extending as far as one thousand nautical miles in South China Sea, the relevance of an aircraft carrier becomes all the more important.

Admiral Liu Huaquing, the Chinese 'Mahan' or 'Gorshkov' and erstwhile Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission has long cherished the dream of the PLA Navy acquiring an aircraft carrier. He was quoted as saying " I'll die with an everlasting regret if China does not build an aircraft carrier". 3 A man of vision and the architect of the modern day Chinese navy, Admiral Liu Huaquing even started the 'pilot warship captains' course in Gungzhou Naval Academy for command of surface ships. 4 Rear Admiral, Yao, President, Guangzhou Naval Academy, had noted that:

"Since the Second World War, aircraft carriers as the symbol of a country's important deterrent power have been accorded more attention. For some historical reasons, China has not yet built aircraft carriers". As the building process is long, we simply cannot afford to dig wells after being thirsty." 5

Since the 1980s, China watchers have been speculating that China was building an aircraft carrier. In 1987, Colonel General Xu Xing, Deputy Chief of General Staff denied such speculation and argued that Chinese military strategy was one of defence and such power projection platforms do not find any place in the naval force structure. 6 Interestingly, there is an anecdotal evidence that Deng Xiaoping was also not keen that China should possess an aircraft carrier. 7 But it appears that in 1992, he had reluctantly approved the plan to design and build a carrier in China. 8 President Yang Shangkun also appears to have asked the General Staff Department of the CMC to procure an aircraft carrier and 'make it functional by 1997'. 9 By 1993, the Chinese naval leadership made public their plans on research and development on the carrier and that the construction had not started at that time. 10 In 1995, Yomiuri Shimbhun, a Japanese daily reported that the Chinese leadership had decided to build the aircraft carrier. Two carriers were planned to be built over the next ten years begining 1996. 11

Be that as it may, Chinese naval officers have been most vocal about the utility of an aircraft carrier both as a political instrument and power projection platform. In an article titled' The Dream of Chinese Aircarft Carrier', Captain Cao Xuegui, PLA Navy (Commanding Officer of Luda class destroyer Pennant No.108) noted that a mobile 'battlefield on the sea' is an important component of the Chinese naval task force for the defence of Chinese territory in South China Sea. He observed that with limited air cover, the task force would be dangerously exposed to the enemy fighter aircraft. Therefore building an aircraft carrier is a necessity. 12 Similar arguments have been put forward by the Commanding Officer of a PLA Navy frigate Pennant No.537.

"..It is a top priority to build or import aircraft carriers and this necessity is not man made, but arises from the realistic situation of War. It still required quite a long period of time before this goal can be reached" 13

More recently, the Chinese public has been in favour of building an aircraft carrier. The bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia on May 8, 1999 appears to have generated enough passion in support of acquisition of an aircraft carrier or its construction. The South China Morning Post reported that a retired PLA soldier, surnamed 'Li" writing under the name of "Bingmeizi" - 'sister soldier' posted a rousing message on a Shengdu, Henan, web site calling all Chinese around the world to contribute to the construction of the world's largest and most advanced aircraft carrier to enhance China's defence capability. 14 What followed was a flurry of support messages in the internet chat rooms in China. Responding to these sentiments, a local daily published special editions to raise funds for the carrier. Added to that the local television began broadcasting stories at regular intervals. Reportedly, the atmosphere was so charged that contributions began pouring in ranging from 99 Yuan by a young girl named Li Fan to 10 million Yuan from a company in Anyang in Henan, China. In about a months time, the total contribution added up to 11 million Yuan. 15

In this context, the China Science and Technology Association noted, "The fact that China is the only permanent UN Security Council member with no aircraft carrier battle group is a handicap which fails to match China's status". It also published a book 'The 21st Century : China's Super Aircraft Carrier', and argued for modernisation of the military through indigenous efforts and not through imports. 16

The calls for building an aircraft carrier have been around for almost two decades now. It appears that the bombing incident has to some extent acted as a catalyst for fulfilling the Chinese desire to dominate regional affairs. They believe that an aircraft carrier is a symbol of China's rightful place in the world order and these war islands not only fulfill the military role but send a message similar to the one that Chinese emperors sent to tributary states. "China is a great power. Tremble and obey!!" 17

An article in a PLA daily, stressed the need for an aircraft carrier and noted, 'History has proved time and again (that) without air domination over the seas there will be no control over the seas' An aircraft carrier is a mobile station indispensable for naval airforce '. It also noted that 'whether or not to have an aircraft carrier is not merely an issue of equipment but, in the final analysis, one of whether to have air control over the seas and whether to become a sea power'. 18

Admiral Shi Yunsheng, the current PLA Navy Commander-in-Chief, on March 19, 1992, stated that, " in order (to) effectively control and protect the air over the South China Sea, we must give priority to air capable of long distance battle and to carrier based aircraft". 19 Admiral Shi was then the Naval Air Force Commander of the South Sea Fleet and was making these observations in the wake of the Sino-Vietnam clash in the Spratly Islands in South China Sea. The Chinese naval practitioners are convinced that an aircraft carrier is essential for the Chinese navy to go to the oceans and an aircraft carrier should be the priority and that this is in the national interest.

Some Chinese naval experts point out that Brazil, Argentina and India are three of the largest debtor nations in the world but still possess or hope to acquire aircraft carriers. 20 Interestingly, India has often figured in the Chinese debate over acquisition of an aircraft carrier. They argue that India has a smaller navy but has two aircraft carriers. The argument over the high costs of building are dismissed by noting that India is not that rich but it is really an issue of 'sea mentality'. 21

Shopping for a Carrier

The Chinese appear to be patient but vigorous window shoppers. At least this is true as far as aircraft carriers are concerned. In the last two decades, they have stepped into the carrier shopping malls in Latin America, Europe, Russia, Australia and even India. 22 They received positive response from several of them who were willing to either sell or build for China. Surprisingly, they did not make inquiries with the US and UK. They must have been confident that the US would never allow such a sale since it would result in a change in the US monopoly in politico-military power. This is further corroborated by the fact that the US has decided to scrap the 52,000 ton aircraft carrier USS Coral Sea on its own soil by an American firm. 23 As far as UK is concerned, the Australians offered them the alternate route in the form of the HMAS Melbourne.

Argentina-Vienticinco de Mayo

Perhaps the first concrete example of Chinese acquisition of an aircraft carrier , albeit in its scrap form, was from Argentina. This Colossus class carrier had flown the ensign of two countries before being commissioned in the Argentine navy. It was built in 1945 for the Royal navy . Later it was sold to the Royal Netherlands navy in 1948 before its final sale to Argentina. During its service in the Argentine navy, it was modernised to allow for operations of Super Etendard aircraft. Since 1985 it had not been operational and was scrapped in 1997. The Chinese had bid for the sale of the vessel as scrap but the deal did not fructify. 24

Australia-Melbourne

China purchased decommissioned HMAS Melbourne from Australia in 1985, as scrap for $1.4 billion. 25 The vessel was originally built for the Royal Navy to be named as HMS Majestic. Its keel was laid on April 15, 1943 at Vickers Barrow, UK. By the time World War II ended, the vessel had still been under construction. Keeping in mind the future requirements of the Royal Navy, the Admiralty appears to have decided to stop building it any further. But, by 1949 the work on the vessel had been resumed and its design modified to include angled deck, steam catapult and a mirror deck landing system. 26

The vessel was finally commissioned in the Royal Australian navy as HMAS Melbourne on October 28, 1955 at Barrow-in-Furnam, UK. It was the longest serving flagship of the Australian Navy. 27 During its thirty year service it picked up for itself the title of 'cursed ship' as it was involved in two major collisions with HMAS Voyager and USS Frank E Evan. 28 On June 30, 1982, it was placed under reserve. At that time, the Australian navy had plans to purchase the HMS Invincible from Britain but the Falkland war in 1982 appears to have forced Britain to cancel its sale. The Australian plans to decommission Melbourne were delayed and it remained inactive till 1985. It was finally towed from Sydney to be broken up in south China.

The Chinese showed special interest in equipment such as catapults, arrestor wires and aircraft lifts / elevators. The flight deck was dismantled and put ashore and PLA navy pilots undertook deck landing practices on the removed deck. Melbourne was in existence till as late as 1994. 29

France-Clemenceau

Chinese interests, however, were not only confined to learning from the Australian example. They also started seriously studying aircraft carrier models of other countries. For instance a high level Chinese military delegation headed by Admiral Liu Huaquing, Vice Chairman, Central Military Commission visited France in late September 1996. 30 Among the several issues of discussions between the two sides, the Chinese delegation showed keen interest in the French aircraft carriers. At that time the French navy was operating two carriers-Clemenceau and Foch. These Clemenceu class aircraft carriers were the first of the French carriers to be built in France after World War II. The construction for the vessels began in the 1950s and they were commissioned in the 1960s (Clemenceau in 1961 and Foch in 1963) as project PA-54 and PA-55. 31 These vessels were scheduled to be decommissioned in 1997 and 2000 respectively.

Clemenceau was deployed for several combat tours of duty : Djibouti (1974), Lebanon (1983), Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War (1991), and Yugoslavia (1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996). During the Iran -Iraq war, the ship cruised 80,000 nautical miles and its aircraft flew 11,000 hours and made 5000 deck landings. 32 The French Navy was not keen to sell the Clemenceau to China. The officials were quoted as saying that the sale would send wrong signals of France supporting a totalitarian regime with a poor human rights record. They were convinced that the carrier would ultimately be used in operations against Taiwan for unification with mainland China. 33 They also feared that the proposed sale would draw criticism from Taiwan, which had earlier purchased La Fayette class frigates. Responding to the likely sale of the French carrier to China, Taiwanese authorities expressed concern arguing that the proposed sale would result in deterioration of the regional security environment and lead to an undesired arms race. 34

Notwithstanding that and the 1989 post-Tianenmen Square arms embargo, Paris was keen to go ahead with the sale of the Clemenceau. French Foreign Minister Herve de Charette told Admiral Liu Huaquing that 'European arms embargo against China is out dated and should be lifted'. 35 The French on their part were exploring loopholes to circumvent the embargo and facilitate sale as 'gift' and sell only non lethal electronic systems. The sale did not materialise and the vessel was decommissioned to be scrapped in France in 1997. 36 However, it was reported that along with the technology transfer related to French Dauphin and Super Frelon helicopters to China, the French also agreed to train Chinese in operating aircraft carriers.

Interestingly, Brazil had shown interest in Clemenceau. More recently, Foch, the other Clemeneau class vessel, due to be decommissioned in 2000 made a port call at Rio de Janerio after exercises with the Indian navy in February 2000. 37 Reportedly, the vessel is likely to be sold to Brazil.

Russia-Varyaag (ex Riga)

Talk that China has acquired the Varyaag has persisted for a very long time. It is true that Chinese officials inspected the vessel in 1992 but failed to agree with the Ukrainian authorities on the price. At that time the vessel was seventy per cent complete. This 67,000 ton, 307 meters long vessel was originally designed for the Soviet Navy and had been under construction since 1985. In fact the original name of the vessel was Riga but following the anti-Soviet demonstrations in the city of Riga, the name of the vessel was changed to Varyaag. 30

By 1996, the condition of the vessel had deteriorated considerably. It was in the dock in the Black Sea shipyard of Nikolayev. 39 It lacked maintenance and was totally exposed to weather and remained unattended. Notwithstanding that, the Chinese had preferred to purchase the vessel as scrap and study its architecture. It was also believed that Chinese naval designers would be able to obtain significant information by taking the vessel apart. Importantly, they wanted to study lifts, wiring and piping. Reportedly, these are the weak areas in Chinese shipbuilding. Interestingly, the vessel was purchased by a Chinese shell company. Chong Lot Tourist and Amusement Agency, a typical Chinese trading house, located in Macao put in its bid in August 1997 to purchase the vessel as scrap.

Among the six bids, the Chinese company submitted the best offer of $600 per ton of steel . This price was at least three times the normal scrap price for similar tonnage ships. The vessel weighed about 33,600 tons in its unfinished condition and totaled to about $20 million. 40 Chong Lot pledged to turn the vessel into a hotel or an amusement center and was able to satisfy the Ukrainian National Agency for Reconstruction and European Integration. The agency stated that the commission had a certificate from the company (Chong Lot) which showed that the tourist firm plans did not run counter to the conditions. The Portuguese authorities in Macao responded that they had not received any request/permission for opening a hotel on a ship to be based in Macao and dismissed it as a joke. 41 Now that Macao has been handed over to China and unified with the mainland, Chong Lot is free to do what it pleases with the vessel. The ploy to buy Varyaag as an amusement center appears to have worked in purchasing the vessel but it is still debatable what the Chinese would do with the vessel. The vessel is still sitting in Nikolayev and rusting. It is doubtful if it is sea worthy to take a long voyage from Black Sea to South China. A satellite imagery taken by the US in 1995 showed that the ship's ammunition elevator was open. 42 It is beyond doubt that the material state of the hull is poor. Even if the vessel is towed to China, it would be scrapped but the naval architects could study it in detail.

Russia-Minsk

While the Chinese were busy negotiating for the Varyaag, a Korean business man purchased Minsk at a bargain price in 1995. 43 The key equipment had been removed. Minsk was the flagship of the Soviet Pacific Fleet. This 47,000 ton, 273 meter long vessel was the fifth largest carrier in the world and entered service in 1978. In 1988-89 it had developed major machinery problems and was laid up alongside. Financial constraints did not permit the Soviets to undertake repairs and lack of maintenance forced them to consider its sale. 44

Three years after its sale to Korea, the vessel was sold as scrap to SZ Minsk Aircraft Carrier Industrial Co. of China for $5 million. 45 After 18 months of refit in Guangzhou, the vessel was converted into a military theme park titled 'Minsk World' and given the theme 'war and peace'. All external weapon systems like surface to air missile launchers, anti-submarine missile containers and guns have been retained. According to Wu Bin, the General Manager of S.Z. International Tourism Corporation, Minsk would attract military fans and school students and the carrier itself can arouse curiosity among the people. 46 The Chinese believe that this would provide an opportunity for education in science and national defence. The important aspect of the refurbishment of Minsk is that the Chinese shipbuilding experts and architects have learnt more about building such large complex platforms and have improved upon their knowledge obtained from Melbourne scrapping. Interestingly, the Chinese have retained the vessel's original name, i.e. Minsk and the weapon systems . This certainly symbolises the growing Sino- Russian relations.

Russia-Kuznetsov

As with other Russian/Ukrainian carriers, the Chinese have taken keen interest in the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. This is the largest warship ever built by Russia or the erstwhile Soviet Union. Kuznetsov is in the real sense a 'defensive aircraft carrier'. 47 The plan to build this vessel began with 80,000 tons standard displacement but ended up with 55,000 tons. The nuclear propulsion was shelved for boiler turbine engines. Similarly, the originally planned four catapults were abandoned and a twelve degree ski jump was fitted. 48 The absence of catapults precluded her aircraft carrying a large pay-load. The vessel is not a true carrier by western definition and can be termed as 'heavy air capable' cruiser. 49 Chinese appear to have liked the concept and reports indicate that a similar vessel under code name Plan 9985 is expected to be built at the Shanghai-Jiangnan Shipyard. 50 Further, the likely tonnage of the vessel is expected to be 48,000 tons.

Spain-Empresa Nacional (Bazan)

In their pursuit to acquire an aircraft carrier, the Chinese even explored the possibility of purchasing a new vessel instead of buying either a scrapped or second hand vessel. Empresa Nacional of Spain offered China two designs of low cost, light, conventional take off and landing carriers with capacity to house 21 aircraft and four helicopters. It offered to build a carrier of 16,000 tons similar to the Thailand carrier Chakri Nerubet.

The design appears to have found favour with the Thai Navy who placed an order for one such vessel on Empresa Nacional. Reportedly this contract of $358 million was accepted against contenders in Great Britain, France, Italy and the USA. 51 The highlights of the contract were the price, technology and production time of only five years. It has a ski jump of 12 degrees and is capable of hosting six Sea Harriers and 12 helicopters. The most important feature of the vessel is that it offers the best ratio between dead weight tonnage and aircraft weight. 52 In 1995, China contacted Bazan shipyard for supply of design drawings of the aircraft carrier. The Chairman of Bazan shipyard Edwardo Abellan visited China and offered to build the vessel. 53 The two sides held talks but it resulted in nothing definite. Reportedly, China inspected the Thai Chakri Nerubet, possibly attempting to capitalise on Thailand's economic crisis. The vessel had not been put to sea for sometime due to economic constraints and is currently open to visitors as a tourist attraction. 54

Naval Doctrine and Aircraft Carrier

Before proceeding to examine the relevance of aircraft carriers in the Chinese naval doctrine, it would be important to locate this power projection platform in the operational doctrine of the United States, Japan, Europe (UK and France) and Soviet Union/Russia where such vessels have been built/deployed. The United States and Japan were the first and the only countries to have deployed carrier based air power. Both were faced with a vast oceanic area of operation. The Pacific Ocean lacked islands/bases capable of supporting large land and air forces. This geographical constraint forced both the US and Japanese navies to acquire aircraft carriers that were self contained, flexible for operations on land and capable of surprise attacks on the enemy fleets/bases. They could also undertake long range reconnaissance and possessed enough capability for defence in the form of escorts. With the emergence of aircraft carriers on the scene, the relevance of battleship as the most powerful platform became suspect. This resulted in development of large aircraft carriers capable of hosting 50 to 100 aircraft.

On the other hand, the European experience was much different. During the pre-war period, the threat of land based air power dominated the minds of naval planners. With a large number of land based bombers in the inventory, the aircraft carriers were perceived to be vulnerable and restricted in offensive role. Land based air power was considered enough to achieve sea control. The British used their carriers in supportive role to locate German commerce raiders and attack them with torpedoes. Since these vessels were in supportive role, they were not fitted with offensive weaponry.

The Soviet tactical exploitation doctrine of their aircraft carriers was developed over more than half a century. Based on the 'active offshore defence' theory, the Soviets formulated 'blishaya pulogulama' or the 'great plan' and advocated building a large naval force comprising aircraft carriers, modern warships, naval airforce and a marine corps. 55 After World War II, under Stalin, the plans to build a large ocean going navy were given the go ahead. The plan continued well but under Khruschev a high priority was accorded to the strategic rocket force or the 'second artillery' and nuclear submarine. 56 The rationale for this prioritisation was that aircraft carriers were susceptible to attack from sophisticated long range missiles. Besides, should there be shortage of funds when developing 'balanced fleet', only the nuclear submarines had the capability to provide the desired deterrence. 57

In contrast to the limited naval capabilities of the Soviet Union during the 1950s and 1960s, as exemplified in its weakness to play an active oceanic role and assert itself in the bipolar naval conflicts of the period, Soviet naval strategy from the 1970s pushed forward the aircraft carriers as one of its instruments in global power projection. The Soviets built/ planned at least five different classes of aircraft carriers. These are (a) Moskva class, 1967 (b) Orel class,1973 (c) Kiev class, 1975 (d) Kuznetsov class (e) Ul'yanovsk class 199?/2000. 58 Only three i.e. Moskva , Kiev and Kuznetsov class were finally constructed. Under Admiral SG Gorshkov, the Soviet navy had three distinct mission roles (a) ship to ship attacks (b) defending Soviet strategic nuclear forces (c) defend Soviet SLOCs and destroy enemy SLOCs. 59 These tasks envisaged a high degree of anti-submarine warfare, targeting at sea and destruction of targets on land. The Moscow class aircraft carrier had the tactical task of defending nuclear submarines and SLOCs and undertaking interdiction of enemy SLOCs. Accordingly Moscow was fitted with ASW helicopters and variable depth sonars to hunt submarines. The Kiev class had the tactical task of anti submarine operations, attacking strategic targets like aircraft carrier at sea and destroying strategic infrastructure on land and naval facilities. These ambitious tasks also called for a commensurate weapon load on board these carriers. The Minsk was fitted with SS-N-12 (range 555 kilometers) SUW-N-1 anti submarine missiles and air defence missiles. 60 The Varyaag class aircraft carrier had an even more ambitious tactical task as compared to the earlier carrier. It was to use its long range anti-ship, anti-air missiles for the classical role of destroying enemy, as also cooperate with missile cruisers, SSGNs and SSBN's to completely destroy the enemy's aircraft carriers and SSGNs. 61 On the basis of the above discussion, it is clear that each class of Russian aircraft carrier had a specific task to play and the development of aircrafts carrier was based on 'incremental tactical/strategic role'.

Though there are several political and ideological differences between the two regimes, the Chinese navy too appears to have followed the Soviet ' balishaya pulogulana' based on the development of modern warship, a naval airforce and a marine corps. Like the Soviets, the Chinese also laid emphasis on development of strategic forces and submarines. But unlike the Soviets, China has taken a long time to build aircraft carriers. This is not to suggest that aircraft carriers did not have any relevance in the Chinese naval strategy.

Since its establishment on July 23, 1949, the Chinese navy (Jiefangjun haijun) pursued a coastal defence strategy under the 'Peoples War' doctrine. Neither its objectives nor its capabilities allowed it to go beyond coastal waters. It was not required to wage a decisive war. However, by the mid 1970s, China's strategic thinking had changed significantly and in Deng Xiaoping's doctrine of 'peoples war under modern condition' and 'military strategy of active defence under high-tech historical conditions' the navy had a major role to play. In 1982, Admiral Liu Huaquing, a former student of Voroshilov Naval Institute in Soviet Union assumed the command of the PLA Navy. Admiral Lui argued that sea power is a crucial element of China's efforts in attaining great power status and maritime issues were extremely important. China needed to build a modern navy to safeguard its maritime interests. Liu articulated the 'offshore active defence' concept and noted that offshore was an idea relative to the high seas and the navy should effectively exercise control of the seas within the first island chain (Alleutions, Kuriles, Japanese archipelago, Ryukyus, Taiwan, Philippines and the Great Sunda islands). 62 This called for acquisition of high technology and modern naval equipment.

Admiral Zhang Lian Zhong, succeeded Admiral Liu (the latter was elevated to Vice Chairman CMC). Admiral Zhang noted that to defend China truly and effectively from raids and attacks from the sea (China) must strengthen the defence in depth at sea and possess naval forces that have the capability to intercept and wipe out the enemy. 63 This called for power projection platforms because only such vessels had the endurance, weapons and capacity to operate far from the home ports in to blue waters. The Chinese believe that in order to wrest control of distant territories and safeguarding maritime zones, China should build platforms to effectively safeguard their maritime interests.

Given these tasks, and the new operational thinking, the PLA Navy has its role cut out to safeguard national offshore territories, exclusive economic zones, unification of Taiwan, strengthening of China's coastal defence and deterrence. Accordingly, the acquisition of an aircraft carrier is the crux and a symbol of the PLA Navy's blue water strategy. 64 They argue that aircraft carriers are the only means of providing air cover to an ocean going task force . According to the long cast of naval force structure and tactical roles, the PLA Navy task forces will be headed by aircraft carriers and form 'a three dimensional system of attack and defence with air, surface and submarine attachment'. 65

A Doctrinal Appreciation

The Chinese naval experts are of the opinion that the size, shape, propulsion, aircraft and the weapon outfit of the aircraft carrier will be determined by the country's naval strategy which should be in compliance with the overall military and economic strategy reflecting 'Chinese characteristics'. 66 Admiral Liu Huaqing has articulated the extent of the 'first island chain' and the 'second island chain'. Besides most naval experts have argued that the PLA Navy needs an aircraft carrier to provide air cover to the fleet operating in South China Sea. This has been emphasised by Admiral Shi Yunsheng, the present Commander-in-Chief of the PLA Navy. Some naval experts have noted that the carrier will facilitate operations against Taiwan. Besides the American deployment of aircraft carriers in all major crises in the Taiwan Straits in 1958 and 1996 is one of the most important factors in Chinese thinking.

If this be the thinking, then neither the Varyaag nor Minsk or for that matter any other Russian carriers have any relevance in the Chinese naval doctrine. These vessels were conceived by the Soviet/Russian navy in a different strategic/tactical context. Their ability to host long range missiles such as SS-N-12 , operations in conjunction with SSBNs and SSGNs and their ability to attack targets on land , clearly highlight their role far beyond simple air cover to a fleet operating far from home. The current Chinese naval doctrine has no such role as performed by the Soviet/Russian carriers.

It can be argued that China will build two types of aircraft carriers: (a) light CTOL carrier of 20,000 to 25,000 tons for operations within the first island chain and (b) heavy duty carrier of 40,000 to 50,000 tons equipped with long range missiles with capability to operate with SSBNs. This would call for redefining the naval doctrine and area of operation, currently restricted to the first island chain. You Xu and You Ji have noted that in the second phase of the development (2001 to 2020), the PLA Navy 'would gradually break away from the west Pacific and enter the oceans around the world' . Beyond 2020, China would have the capability of a major sea power. 67

'Build or Buy' Debate

Captain Cao Xuegui, Commanding Officer of Pennant No.108 'Luda' class destroyer advocates building a 15,000 ton light duty, nuclear power driven carrier with combat aircraft, ship to ship missiles, ship to air missile, automatic 100 mm gun , 30 mm close in weapon system, advance electronic warfare equipment and modern C3I suite. 68 You Xu and You Ji believe that if China builds an aircraft carrier it will be similar to the British Invincible type of 20,000 to 40,000 tons. They further argue that it would be easy for China to define the vessel as defensive and intended solely for safeguarding maritime territory. 69

Reports about China building an aircraft carrier indigenously have appeared in the media for quite some time. Some of these appear to be part of western propaganda while there are some reports that quote documentary evidence. For instance it was reported that a huge hole was observed at Dalian. It ultimately turned out to be the Dalian new shipbuilding dock and subsequent inquiries revealed that the Dalian new dock had orders to build 120,000 ton vessels for Norway. 70 It was also reported that the carrier-building programme was listed as a key project in the 8th Five Year Plan. 71 Recent reports suggest that Beijing has plans to build a conventional carrier (Plan 9985) with a displacement of 48,000 tons. The vessel will be powered by TB 12 steam turbines with a maximum speed of 30 knots. The vessel is to be launched in 2003. Interestingly, the report notes that China will build one aircraft carrier every three years. 72

There is little doubt that the PLA Navy will acquire an aircraft carrier. The debate however is 'build' or 'buy'. Aircraft carriers, by their very nature are technology intensive platforms. They host complex systems such as catapults, landing gear, lifts/elevators to move aircraft from hangar to deck and back and a reinforced landing deck/ski jump. Such technologies are not easily available in the international market. As regards shipbuilding, China ranks third in the world and has the capability to build larger vessels over 100,000 tons. It also has a long experience of building warships and submarines but non availability of specialist equipment will delay construction or may even force China to purchase the complete vessel from a foreign source.

Budgetary Constraints

Another impediment in the acquisition of the carrier is the huge cost attached to it. Going by current prices, the cost of building a carrier is about $4.0 to 4.5 billion Yuan. According to some Chinese, budgetary consideration may not be so important since it is the political determination that will dictate allocation of financial resources for the vessel. Some unconfirmed reports even suggest that up to three billion Yuan i.e. 2 to 3 percent of the PLA's budget with a daily operating cost of 300,000 Yuan has been earmarked.

Professor Zhang Zhaozhong, a military expert at the National University of Defence Technology noted that to build an aircraft carrier involved an expenditure equivalent to six to seven years budget of the PLA. He stated, "Even if our army did not eat, buy new clothing or equipment for six to seven years we would still not be able to afford one Nimitz". 73 A Chinese naval military equipment expert responded by noting," We should not calculate the cost of aircraft carriers this way because all building expenses in China would be cheaper. By some estimates it would be closer to 1:1 i.e. what the US can do with one dollar, China can do with one renminbi". 74

While there are others who argue that when it was poor, China could afford to spend 1.3 billion Yuan on space programme, it can certainly afford to build a carrier. Since the building process is long, the breakdown cost per year will not be 'unbearably high'. 75 As noted earlier, the vessel under Plan 9985 is expected to cost 4.8 billion renminbi (US$580.41 million) . The first phase building fund of 1.0 billion renminbi (US$120.92 million) has already been approved. 76

Training

As noted earlier, in 1995, Admiral Liu Huaquing ordered the establishment of a special course for naval pilots to train them to command warships. The course is linked to the command of an aircraft carrier. The Chinese appear to draw inspiration from the US Navy practice appointing naval pilots to their aircraft carriers. 77 Rear Admiral Yao was quoted as saying that the Guangzhao naval academy would train experts needed for carriers.

In the past, Chinese Naval airforce (NAF) pilots have undertaken short range take off and landing on roads. Reportedly, the deck of Melbourne was also used by Chinese Naval Air Force pilots to practice deck landing. In 1987, the PLA Navy has even experimented with F-8 II in catapult launch mode. 78 Similarly, Ka 27 helicopters have completed deck landing on Luhu class destroyers.

Earlier China acquired Su 27 aircraft from Russia with license to produce up to 500 aircraft at its factory in Xian. The Russian navy already operates Su 27 K, the naval version of Su 27, on its carriers. There is every likelihood that Chinese naval pilots have already completed training on board the Russian carrier. Besides, the PLA navy has also built a simulated flying deck at an airport in northern China. The Melbourne deck was used as reference and an indigenously built 'optical landing system' has been fitted. 79

Regional Security Environment

The Chinese are determined to possess an aircraft carrier. All trends, indicators and articulations point to the fact that the Dragon's ' Dragonfly' will be a reality in the near future. It is bound to generate anxiety and tension among the regional countries. Similarly, the regional security architecture will undergo a major transformation and alter the strategic balance. The Chinese leaders make no secret of their desire to become a major power and unlike Japan, are developing both economic and military capability to influence events in the region.

There is a logical temptation among the Republics of Korea, Japan and Taiwan to acquire aircraft carriers and offset the imbalance that would be created by the 'Dragonfly'. A Japanese defence official has argued that Tokyo needed 'small defensive' aircraft carriers of 25,000 tons to defend the sea lanes that serve as its umbilical cord. 80 In an interview, Rear Admiral Chiaki Hayashizaki, Director of Operations and Planning of the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force stated that Japan's defence policy did not exclude the possibility of building small aircraft carriers. 81

The acquisition of an aircraft carrier by China will certainly fuel an arms race. Reportedly, the Republic of Korea navy already has plans to acquire at least two aircraft carriers. With a highly sophisticated shipbuilding industry, Korea has the technological capability to build complex platforms such as aircraft carriers. Besides the western 'carrier malls' will be more than willing to meet the demands of any other navy in the Asia Pacific region. This would act as a catalyst in the carrier acquisition race. Thailand navy acquired the Chakri Nerubet and sent out a signal that it was joining the elite club of carrier nations and assuming the role of military leadership in the region. Besides, strategic planners in Bangkok have reportedly cited the rise of Indian naval power as a reason for Thailand's naval modernisation and expansion. A possibility of increased interest by Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines cannot be ruled out.

Implications for India

China's recent rise as an important trading state, its high economic growth, rising defence budget, military modernisation and also its relative importance in the international forum, raise questions about its regional objectives. The assessments cover a wide spectrum of future Chinese ambitions. But the recent Chinese response to various issues relating to sovereignty, security and national integrity are only reflective of Chinese intentions. It is an ambitious power out to acquire capabilities to dominate regional affairs and stake its claim as the rightful regional force.

China has long understood the strategic importance of the Malacca Strait. Malacca has figured in the strategic thinking of their ancient mariners. The Strait continues to dominate the commercial and economic lifelines of the Asia-Pacific region, and this reality is of increasing importance to China. China's naval and military surge into the Indian Ocean is a major strategic priority of planners in Beijing. The surge is aimed at consolidating the Chinese military posture in support of its maritime interests. In 1993, Gen Zhao Nanqi, Director of the General Logistic Department of the PLA, issued a top secret memorandum which explained in detail the PLA's strategic plans to consolidate control over the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean under the new doctrine of 'high sea defence'. Zhao stated, " We can no longer accept the Indian Ocean as only an ocean of the Indians". Beijing has no doubts that its neighbours would oppose China's strategic surge. "We are taking armed conflicts in the region into account", Zhao stated in his top-secret memorandum. 82

As noted earlier, in the naval realm, the PLA Navy has defined its role within the framework of its 'offshore active defense' strategy. No conclusive definition was given regarding the extent of 'offshore'. Admiral Liu Huaqing, then Commander, PLA Navy, gave his interpretation of the concept of 'offshore' and noted that 'offshore' should not be interpreted as coastal; instead 'offshore' is a concept relative to the 'high seas'. While referring to the Great Sunda Islands, the Chinese 'Mahan', Admiral Huaquing, had included the strategic choke point of the Malacca Strait in his strategic calculations.

China has long been seeking an outlet into the Indian Ocean in furtherance of its bid for the rich mineral resources of Asia, oil from the Persian Gulf and the markets of the region. Besides China is well aware of the strategic choke points of Southeast Asia. Towards that end, China has begun making inroads into the Indian Ocean and has begun to encircle the Malacca Strait as also India, which it perceives as a possible containment force. Geographically, the South China Sea in the east and India and Indonesia in the west dominate the approaches to the Malacca Strait . China has begun to neutralise the domination of both India and Indonesia by making diplomatic, military and economic inroads into Myanmar. Myanmar offers a strategic staging post to control the western approaches to the Malacca Strait. In the east, the Spratly Islands offer a strategic location with respect to the sea-lane between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean via the Malacca Strait. It would not be long before Chinese naval task forces, headed by aircraft carriers start making frequent voyages in the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea.

end quote

[MIGleader]

Pardon the double post, as this is too large to combine with my other post

The aircraft carrier program is not 100% guranteed. here is a counter article stating the reasons the PLA may have against a carrier. I have never thought of some of these things before

http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2529.html
Quote:

The debate over China's aircraft carrier program
You Ji, The Jamestown Foundation, China Brief
3/2/2005

Elsewhere, Ian Storey and I have both argued that the PLA's aircraft carrier program is shelved but not canceled altogether. [1] Profound political and military factors are at work to delay construction, but the idea of China possessing carriers is not dead. In other words, the debate is continuing both within PLA leadership and among interested members of the public. That the aircraft carrier serves as an unfulfilled national ambition still inspires both the PLA and the population. However, Chinese pragmatism propels the Beijing government to concentrate on expedient security considerations, not by vane displays of power.
Not Compatible with Warfare in the IT Age

The carrier debate in China is deeply rooted in a larger debate among Chinese strategists: what weapon is best suited for the IT (information technology) age? This is related to the debate over what type of warfare the PLA could be involved in during the IT age. The dominant view of PLA commanders is that the first Gulf War of 1991 was America's last war of the industrial age aimed at destroying the enemy's military machine. Warfare in the IT age, however, is most likely to be in the form of non-engagement. Information warfare (IW) capabilities will be more crucial than conventional firepower. Paralyzing the enemy's capability through information systems leads to its rapid collapse. Aircraft carriers as a good platform for delivering fire power and anchoring IW measures are important but not indispensable over time. Hence, other more cost effective IW anchorages will emerge.

Not Compatible with the PLA's New National Defense Strategy

In 2002 the PLA put forward a new national defense strategy focusing on the IT transformation of the Chinese military. A major component of the strategy is the so-called generation leap (from the industrial age to the IT age). To PLA strategists, the characterization of force modernization in the industrial age is mechanization (platform-centric), while in the IT age, it is informatization defined in terms of systems integration (network centric). Apparently aircraft carriers are considered to belong to the former. Although warfare is conducted between platforms, aircraft carriers being the best of them, victory is decided by the IT systems. Under the guidance of this new strategy, the priority of weapons Research and Development has been set on enhancing the IT transformation of the PLA, with the network-centric capabilities attracting increased funding. Costly carriers do not enjoy significant leadership attention.

Not Compatible with the PLA's War Preparation

In 1999 the PLA top command issued an order to accelerate preparations for war following the events of the Chinese embassy bombing and Lee Teng-hui's move for Taiwan's independence (his two-state-thesis). IW dominated action in the Taiwan Strait with U.S. involvement has been identified as the inevitable scenario the PLA must confront. [2] This has three negative impacts on the Navy's carrier project. First, if the U.S. is seen as the potential object of engagement, no Chinese carrier could survive the first few days of war. Second, if the PLA's future war is to take place in the Strait, it will most likely be through actions of non-engagement in the form of counter-force through IT or missile warfare. After all, a Taiwan war is a war of politics, not one of invasion. The aim is to cripple Taiwan's key defense assets rather than to kill large numbers of Taiwanese soldiers and civilians. Within a geographic range of two hundred miles, the use of the aircraft carrier is in question. Third, as the focal point of China's security has shifted to the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea is no longer an area of major concern for the navy. The aircraft carrier won its day of attention exactly due to the Spratly focus in the late 1980s. The strategic urgency for it has since greatly diminished.

Not Compatible with the Navy's Immediate Combat Plans

Although the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has a long-term blue war ambition, its current posture is basically defensive. Apart from the Taiwan scenario, which is offensively oriented, the naval missions in the near term can be described as achieving sea control and sea denial effect. Sea control refers to effective defense of China's three offshore narrows: the Bohai Sea Strait, the Taiwan Strait, and the Qiongzhou Strait. Of these, the Bohai is the top priority, as it protects Beijing. The Taiwan Strait is also vital, because it allows the PLAN access to the western Pacific. Sea control capability is crucial for deterring Taidu, or Taiwanese independence. It also leads to defensive campaigns against invading fleets in waters adjacent to major coastal cities, such as Shanghai (in the case of U.S. involvement).

Sea denial means maritime defense in depth, a strategy resembling Japan's 1,000 nautical miles (nm) ocean security guidance. This defense perimeter is just outside the strategic Bohai channel and the Taiwan Strait, and is extended towards the first island chain in the west Pacific, about 200 to 250 nm from home. The denial takes the form of disrupting the enemy's sea lines of communication (SLOCs), or at protecting China's key traffic lines. It constitutes the outer shield of maritime defense for the PLAN, in addition to the first layer of coastal line defense needed for sea control. Sea denial is designed to break any blockade against China within the first island-chain in the next decade or so. [3] It is important to note that in the PLA war plan, sea control or denial is to be achieved not across a large horizontal geographic area but in a few vertically distributed lanes. It need not be comprehensive but is based on partial superiority of a limited time vis-Ã*-vis the opponent. Obviously the aircraft carrier could not be of significant practical value to these combat models for the Chinese navy.

Not Compatible with China's Foreign Policy Strategy

Last but not least, there are technological and budgetary constraints, and the idea that the aircraft carrier is at odds with China's current foreign policy priority. First, the carrier as a long range power project weapon could provide an excuse for global alarmist voices against China's peaceful rise. Worse still, it may serve as proof for the U.S. to regard Beijing as a strategic competitor. In fact, the best state of Sino-American relations is conditioned upon China not challenging U.S. global leadership, stated many times by China's new leaders. Overtly rigorous military reach-out may be interpreted otherwise. Secondly, Chinese aircraft carriers would cause concern in East Asia, especially among the Spratly claimants. This could be counter-productive to Beijing's concentration on the Taiwan situation, as it needs strong regional support to deter Taipei's move towards de jure independence.

The Aircraft Carrier is Dead, Long Live the Aircraft Carrier

Against all odds mentioned above, the feelings for aircraft carriers are still strong among Chinese sailors and ordinary citizens who long to see carriers of their own. Even the leadership has not scrapped the project altogether. Only has the reality of the changed times been temporarily accepted. The reason being, aircraft carriers possess many fighting capabilities that remain attractive to the Navy. The PLA will not stay within the first island chain forever. Control of air is now the precondition for sea control and denial. A carrier can be a great platform from which to mount IT warfare measures, too. Very importantly, research on aircraft carriers can be useful in studying the weaknesses of carriers, useful for dealing with carrier battle groups. This practical consideration has been behind the continued research effort.

In addition to these factors, reality does change over time: the Taiwan situation can be eased and Sino-US relations can be stabilized. The relevance of aircraft carrier capability to PLA modernization has not disappeared completely. Beijing may focus its attention on the South China Sea dispute again, and use a different method to come to a solution in the future. Aircraft carriers are perceived as potent symbols of national power around the world, and China is no different. It could make its peaceful rise more powerful. Therefore, the Chinese leaders may change their minds on carriers in the future.

end quote:

[Sczepan]

at http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=529&page=30 we got some pix of varjag and taiwanese media breefing about rumors of Varjags military future ....
now there is a general answer of chinese government to carrier rumor:
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/art/2006/01/24/237690/Beijing_denies_aircraft_carrier_rumor.htm
Beijing denies aircraft-carrier rumor
Zhang Liuhao
2006-01-24 Beijing Time

THE central government today denied a rumor emanating from Taiwan about plans to buy and rebuild an aircraft carrier, Xinhua news agency reported.

"We don't know where the Taiwanese authorities got their so-called intelligence," said Li Weiyi, a spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council.

Taiwanese authorities recently said mainland China would buy a discarded aircraft carrier from the Ukraine and revamp it for military use.

Li said efforts by the Kuomintang Party and the Communist Party of China to hold a cross-strait forum on the economy, trade and culture were being disrupted by Taiwanese authorities acting on politics rather than the benefits of the people.

The planned exchange between the two parties is expected to increase understanding between the island and the mainland and boost economic cooperation, he added.
see http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2006-01/24/content_4093392.htm in chinese

[bd popeye]

at http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=529&page=30 we got some pix of varjag and taiwanese media breefing about rumors of Varjags military future ....
now there is a general answer of chinese government to carrier rumor:
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/art/2006/01/24/237690/Beijing_denies_aircraft_carrier_rumor.htm
see http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2006-01/24/content_4093392.htm in chinese

C'mon now!?:( :confused: Who are we so far away from what is going on with the Varyag really susposed to know what's going on? Who are we to believe???:confused: The ROC? Or the PRC? Take your choice ! You gotta a 50/50 chance of being right!

Well let me voice my opinion. If the PRC is indeed refitting the Varyag to be a CV I think they should come forth and say so. Don't surprise us in three years. You don't have a ship that size in the shipyard with work being done to it for nearly four years for nothing. And don't worry about what Rumsfeild may say. His job is to run is mouth about precieved threats to the US. The US is already planning for the PLAN expansion.

Anyone for a game of roulette??? Where are the slot machines??? Where's the crap tables?? Can a brother get some dice!!!!????

Get my point? It's time for the PRC to come clean on this whole CV deal. Period.

[Sczepan]

C'mon now!?:( :confused: Who are we so far away from what is going on with the Varyag really susposed to know what's going on? Who are we to believe???:confused: The ROC? Or the PRC? Take your choice ! You gotta a 50/50 chance of being right! .....
I only postet the declaration including source
....You don't have a ship that size in the shipyard with work being done to it for nearly four years for nothing....
thats my point to:
- the Varyag was sold for US$20 million. That price is about three times the normal scrap price for similar large ships
- the towing (circling in black sea before passing the Bosporus for months and months); The purchase and towing of the Varyag has cost about US$30 million, probably making it too expensive for use as an entertainment centre;
- the work in shipyard for years (including quayage at Dalian)
....
thats all need a lot of money, which is out of relations by every zivil use ...

but lets read between the lines
1) "We don't build a carrier in Shanghai" - thats right, Dalian isn't Shanghai
2) "to buy a discarded aircraft carrier from the Ukraine and (rebuild) revamp it for military use" - could be right to, China don't have to buy ... Varjag today is owned by chinese company;
3) "aircraft carrier" .... - hm, did you call the Varjag a "Aircraft Carrier"?
Isn't it a "Flugdeckkreuzer" as we say in german www.russlandonline.ru/ruall0010/morenews.php?iditem=919 http://members.aol.com/mircogr/rus.html, which could be translated "Cruiser Aviation" or "Cruiser Volplane" ?
It could be used as "Trainee Cruiser", "Helo Cruiser" or anything else liké this, but I dont think you can call this vessels als "Aircraft Carrier" (compare to american Carriers ....).

[MIGleader]

A coupel of problems...we dont know who owns varyag today. The company that bought her in 1998 is not out of business. we can guess that the company sold the carrier to the PLAN. who else has rights to paint a carrier in the plan light grey?

The varyag is officiaslly classified as a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser, the political status that allowed it to pass bozperus.

[Sczepan]

...
The varyag is officiaslly classified as a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser, the political status that allowed it to pass bozperus.
so we should discuss about the Varjag at http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=529 and face this vessel out here .... o.k.?

[Sea Dog]

A coupel of problems...we dont know who owns varyag today. The company that bought her in 1998 is not out of business. we can guess that the company sold the carrier to the PLAN. who else has rights to paint a carrier in the plan light grey?

The varyag is officiaslly classified as a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser, the political status that allowed it to pass bozperus.

My opinion is that the PLAN owns it. If it was transferred or bought as a private concern, I think there would have been alot of fanfare (news). Bought by PLAN....then probably no one would say a thing. Nothing has been mentioned and yet, it is being painted like a PLAN ship. It makes you wonder.

[maglomanic]

Hi guys,

I was looking at the pic of the so called "project #81", and if i am not mistaken it shows a twin engine J-10!
Am i correct? if i am then how real is the prospect of a twin engine J-10??

[swimmerXC]

Hi guys,

I was looking at the pic of the so called "project #81", and if i am not mistaken it shows a twin engine J-10!
Am i correct? if i am then how real is the prospect of a twin engine J-10??

Wrong Thread to post this :coffee:
Never heard of a twin engine J-10.. only one engine or two seater...
but there's lots of CGI about twin engine...
If you want me to post them, I'll put them in hte PLAAF pic thread

[renmin]

Sorry guys, my computer had a problem and I cant gain acess to this site, any ways, I couldnt find the site but that wont make a defference, because all it said was the name. no info. There are many rumors that China plans to put Jian 10s on their carriers. I have even seen a model in a chinese meuseam that showed a carrier with J-8s and 10s.

[maglomanic]

Wrong Thread to post this :coffee:
Never heard of a twin engine J-10.. only one engine or two seater...
but there's lots of CGI about twin engine...
If you want me to post them, I'll put them in hte PLAAF pic thread

Sorry about that, i was really not sure since i read somewhere that twin engine J-10 specifically for air carrier service will be produced.

[Defense]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/30/business/carrier.php

BEIJING As China builds a military to match its growing economic power, its neighbors and potential rivals including the United States have puzzled over a key question: When will the Chinese Navy launch an aircraft carrier?

For decades, senior Chinese military and political officials have argued that for the country to become a great power, the People's Liberation Army Navy needs to add these potent warships to its fleet.

However, the major obstacle to this ambition is that aircraft carriers are hugely expensive.

The two 50,000-metric-ton conventionally powered carriers now under development for Britain's Royal Navy are expected to cost a minimum of $2.5 billion each. To outfit them with aircraft could cost that much again.

And, aircraft carriers do not operate alone. They need a fleet of warships, submarines and supply vessels along with advanced electronic surveillance for support and protection.

For these reasons, most experts assumed a Chinese carrier was decades away.

But after double-digit increases in defense spending over much of the past 15 years, evidence is now emerging that China has a more ambitious timetable.

"I am convinced that before the end of this decade, we will see preparations for China to build its first indigenous aircraft carrier," said Rick Fisher, the Washington-based vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center and an expert on the Chinese military.

Fisher and other analysts note that extensive work now appears to be under way on a carrier purchased from Ukraine, the Varyag, now moored in the northern Chinese port of Dalian.

They speculate that the Varyag, fresh from the dry dock and, according to recent photographs, now painted in the navy's gray, could be used for training or even upgraded so that it was fully operational.

Not surprisingly, the Taiwan military has also been monitoring activity on the Varyag.

At a briefing in Taipei on Jan. 19, a Taiwan military spokesman, Liu Chih-chien, pointed to satellite photographs of the carrier at anchor in Dalian, where he said it had been under repair.

"Although China claimed that the Varyag will be used as a tourist attraction, the aircraft carrier would actually be used as a training ship in preparation for building an aircraft carrier battle group," Liu said.

Analysts also report that at recent international air shows, Chinese military officers have been showing strong interest in strike aircraft suited to fly from carriers.

As with earlier reports that the Chinese Navy intended to acquire aircraft carriers, Beijing denied Taiwan's claim.

"We don't know where the Taiwanese authorities got their so-called intelligence," said Li Weiyi, a spokesman for China's Taiwan Affairs Office, according to a report carried last week by the official Xinhua news agency.

Whatever the timetable, most naval experts agree that China will almost certainly build or buy aircraft carriers.

"Given China's strategic ambitions, it's a logical move," said Sam Bateman, a maritime security expert at Singapore's Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies.

"I am sure the PLAN has carrier aspirations," he said, referring to the People's Liberation Army Navy.

Bateman said that, like the United States, two of China's neighbors, India and Japan, would be anxious about the prospect of carriers in the Chinese fleet.

What is clear is that China has already invested decades of effort in its bid to gain the technology and skills needed to build and operate these warships.

Admiral Liu Huaqing, vice chairman of China's Central Military Commission before his retirement in 1997, is widely regarded as the father of the navy's aircraft carrier program.

Heavily influenced by his exposure to top Russian naval experts during his studies in the Soviet Union as a young officer in the 1950s, Liu advocated that China should have aircraft carriers as the backbone of a "blue water" navy that could deploy beyond the country's coastal waters.

In military journals published in the 1990s he wrote that aircraft carriers would ensure China's control over Taiwan and territories it claimed in the South China Sea and match the growing military power of neighbors including Japan and India.

Liu, along with other senior Chinese defense analysts, also recognized that China was becoming a major trading power and would become increasingly dependent on secure sea lanes to carry its imports of energy and raw materials and exports of manufactured goods.

They argued that aircraft carriers would give the navy the ability to keep these sea lanes open in times of conflict or international tension.

Other analysts also say that a carrier would be symbolically important as evidence of Chinese power in the same way that U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier battle groups serve as a reminder of America's global reach.

Early work on the feasibility of building a carrier began in Shanghai in the early 1980s but the first clear sign of China's ambition came in 1985 when China bought a decommissioned Australian aircraft carrier, apparently for scrap.

However, before the vessel was dismantled, Chinese experts studied the design of this carrier and used the flight deck for pilot training, according to naval analysts.

The disintegration of the once-powerful Soviet Navy after the collapse of the Soviet Union provided further opportunities to study the design and construction of modern carriers.

Senior defense officials in Japan and Southeast Asia were intrigued when Chinese companies bought two decommissioned Russian antisubmarine carriers, the Minsk and Kiev, but speculation that these would have some military role in China proved groundless.

The Minsk was converted into a floating museum in Shenzhen, and the Kiev is also being modified, to serve as a floating tourist attraction in Tianjin.

In the 1990s, a number of countries including Spain and France signaled that they would be prepared to build or sell an aircraft carrier to China but Beijing apparently declined these overtures.

Some experts on the Chinese military say that plans to build or buy a carrier were shelved after 1997 with the retirement of Liu and renewed emphasis on military preparations to fight a war over Taiwan if the island declared independence.

Taiwan's proximity to the mainland means land-based Chinese aircraft and missiles would be well within range in the event of a conflict.

As recently as 2003 in its annual report to Congress on China's military, the Pentagon said China appeared to have "set aside indefinitely" its plans to acquire a carrier.

Instead, the Chinese military seemed intent on developing the firepower to sink aircraft carriers, a move clearly aimed at deterring the United States if it decided to intervene in any conflict over Taiwan.

This included a rapid upgrade of China's conventional and nuclear submarine fleet, the delivery of advanced Russian surface warships armed with supersonic missiles and an expanded force of Russian-made and domestically produced strike aircraft.

However, the purchase for $20 million of the 67,500-metric-ton Varyag from Ukraine in 1998 suggested that Beijing retained a strong desire for aircraft carriers and a blue-water navy.

The Varyag was still under construction in a Ukrainian shipyard when the Soviet Union collapsed and neither Russia nor Ukraine had the funds to complete the work.

A Macao-based company with close ties to the Chinese armed forces bought the carrier without engines, rudders or armament and said it would be moored in the former Portuguese colony as a floating casino.

At the time, most analysts said this seemed an unlikely explanation for the purchase because Macao's harbor was far too shallow to berth a warship of this size.

After a long delay while Turkish authorities, fearful of the danger to shipping, refused permission for the carrier to be towed through the Bosporus, the Varyag was eventually delivered to the Dalian shipyard in 2002.

The fact that Beijing went to great diplomatic lengths to persuade Turkish authorities to allow the transit was seen by some experts as further evidence of China's determination to improve its understanding of carrier technology.

There is tight security surrounding the Varyag in Dalian harbor, but work on the vessel is clearly visible from nearby highways.

Recent photographs show extensive repairs or maintenance to the carrier's superstructure and deck.

"There is a lot of work happening on that thing which is not consistent with a gambling casino," Fisher said.

[MIGleader]

Neither India or Japan have the right to moan about a chiense carrier. Idia has been operating a carrier for years, and has another planned for 2009, and four more planned for 2015-2020. Japan has Lpds and a u.s carrier.

[FuManChu]

Certainly India can't complain - and is it complaining? Or just "worried" that China might start producing them?

Japan is slightly different, as the vessels it has/will have do not have the same kind of offensive capability that a completed Varyag or other Chinese carrier would do. And the US carriers are only for defence. Japan could not use them for her own ends. I don't know that Japan can "complain" about a Chinese carrier either, but certainly China should not be surprised if Japan modified the constitution and built its own carriers in response.

But really I think that we're quite some time off China having a combat-ready carrier for jets anyway, so I think people are getting a bit too excited over this.

[Intrepid]

Japan is slightly different, as the vessels it has/will have do not have the same kind of offensive capability that a completed Varyag or other Chinese carrier would do. And the US carriers are only for defence.
???

US-Carriers are the only real offensive carriers worldwide, I think. No other carriers can take so much firepower across the ocean.

[bd popeye]

???

US-Carriers are the only real offensive carriers worldwide, I think. No other carriers can take so much firepower across the ocean.

I think what he means that Japan could not use an USN CV to attack any nation. They could only request the USN CV for protection or retalation if attacked.

Your first statement is 100% correct. USN CV's are pure power projection capable of striking anywhere...Check this pic out...

Pacific Ocean (May 25, 2005) - The nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) lead ships assigned to the Nimitz Strike Group and the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) in formation.

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6963/nimitz9fs.jpg

[FuManChu]

I think what he means that Japan could not use an USN CV to attack any nation. They could only request the USN CV for protection or retalation if attacked.

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks, popeye :)

well, since you're a new guy, welcome. and just so that you know, we have a fairly strict rule on one-liners, so be careful not to make any one-liner posts if possible. responds such as this can be done thru PM. --TUP

[darth sidious]

Certainly India can't complain - and is it complaining? Or just "worried" that China might start producing them?
Japan is slightly different, as the vessels it has/will have do not have the same kind of offensive capability that a completed Varyag or other Chinese carrier would do. And the US carriers are only for defence. Japan could not use them for her own ends. I don't know that Japan can "complain" about a Chinese carrier either, but certainly China should not be surprised if Japan modified the constitution and built its own carriers in response.
But really I think that we're quite some time off China having a combat-ready carrier for jets anyway, so I think people are getting a bit too excited over this.

china can buy the su-33 any time just pay the russians varyag is easy to fix if the russians supply the engine

right now japan hides it carrier development under the disguse of "frigate" or LHD
htey certinaly dont have the right to complain as their navy is several times more powerful then china

[renmin]

Certainly India can't complain - and is it complaining? Or just "worried" that China might start producing them?

Japan is slightly different, as the vessels it has/will have do not have the same kind of offensive capability that a completed Varyag or other Chinese carrier would do. And the US carriers are only for defence. Japan could not use them for her own ends. I don't know that Japan can "complain" about a Chinese carrier either, but certainly China should not be surprised if Japan modified the constitution and built its own carriers in response.

But really I think that we're quite some time off China having a combat-ready carrier for jets anyway, so I think people are getting a bit too excited over this.U.S. carriers are only for defense?!, Id think not, the carriers symbolizes the true power of the US navy. Aircraft carriers are made for attack not for defense just like nuclear weapons. The carrier has been for ever a super war machine with many capabilities. Can you tell me why U.S. carriers are in the middle east if they are for defense? Sorry for the of topic just trying to make a point here.

[darth sidious]

U.S. carriers are only for defense?!, Id think not, the carriers symbolizes the true power of the US navy. Aircraft carriers are made for attack not for defense just like nuclear weapons. The carrier has been for ever a super war machine with many capabilities. Can you tell me why U.S. carriers are in the middle east if they are for defense? Sorry for the of topic just trying to make a point here.

he just got baned in CDF for flaming and trooling dont take it seriously
carrier symbolized a true blue water navy the carrier more airpower then most national
airforce it is a purely offensive weapon or as the soviets puts it "weapon of the imperalists"

but in the future they are useless missiles are the way of the future

[Gollevainen]

:off :off All that happens in other forums, happens in some where else, and our pasts in othr forums doesent affect on anything in here, got it? So one more sentence of picking someone by his past and Im going to get pissed off. Only thing that matters is the members behaiviour in this forum. If someone has negative past, the KGB (moderation team) MIGTH investigate it, as we do it to all things, but other members should not trouple their minds over this!!!:off :off

[jackbh]

A carrier force is great for offence over long distance and power projection of a blue water navy, but it is not necessarely so for defence. If your navy is not very developed and you have a carrier. It will probably be more of a liability than a good weapon. I don't think China would be wise to pursue a carrier right now as it cost alot of money, and the time to train a capable carrier force would take years. China should better put the money on advance missle technology like the Russians do, instead of wasting valuable resources on carrier which could be a risky investment.

[FuManChu]

U.S. carriers are only for defense?!

See what popeye had to say - he understood, so why can't you?

I meant that Japan would only benefit from them in a defensive situation - it could not use them for offensive purposes because the US would not allow it unless they wanted to do something themselves. So when MIG leader said "Japan has LPDs and a US carrier", I was correcting him over how that carrier could ever be put into play.

[Lavi]

It's quite interesting that a lot of people are commenting on the fact that Japan and India feels worried about a possible Chinese carrier, or at least I think so. A few points:

A) Of course they might be worried even if they have the same capability, it still is a vast increase in Chinese offensive capability.

B) Nations don't bother about what is 'fair' in politics. Of course it can be argued that if India operates a carrier they can't deny China the same thing, however, when messing with politics on high levels and national defence interests such things are usually overlooked. India simply don't care what is fair, the only thing they care about in this case is that a possible threath towards their nation might be built.

[renmin]

Future railguns can be mounted on carriers to shoot down incoming missile (just a guess). Any ways, the carrier is going to be around for a long time. its the only way a country can lead a sugnificant air strike without setting up a base. The carrier is truly needed and China needs one.

[swimmerXC]

I think if we donate enough money together we can save up for the Minsk Aircraft Carrier...
After all, all we have to raise is $16,000,000 USD.. :o
Read the red part.... it's a must read

Minsk Aircraft Carrier To Come For Sale By Auction For US$ 16,000,000
Written by Administrator
Tuesday, 21 February 2006
ImageChina will put Minsk ship, a former Soviet aircraft carrier of Kiev class, on public sale which is currently used as an entertainment center, Reuters announces. The ship was the first Soviet aircraft carrier bought by China lat in ‘90s. It was sold for recycling, but in one of the companies in People’s Rep. of China bought up the ship, having transformed it into an entertainment center in 2000. At present, restaurants, a cinema and other places of entertainment and pleasure are disposed in the Minsk interior space.

The initial price on vendue, which is to be opened on 22 March, will be 128 millions Chinese yuans, that is equal to approximately 16 million USD. The ship is anchored at the coast of Shenchzhen city.

The reason of the ship sale is that Minsk World Industries Co. Ltd., which was owning the entertainment center, went bankrupt last March. After that the center kept on working, but under outside management already.

Apart from Minsk, China bought also two more aircraft carriers: uncompleted Varyag (of same type as the Russian Admiral Kuznetsov) and Kiev. The latter also was converted into place of entertainment. Varyag ship, bought in Ukraine in 1998, was to be transformed into casino, but it did not happen till now because of financial reasons.

Minsk aircraft carrier was launched 30.09.1975 and in three year time, after retrofitting and respective trials , was accepted for the operational service. In November 1978 it was accepted in the structure of the Pacific Navy Force. In February- July 1979 the ship made a long distant cruise from Sevastopol around Africa to Vladivostok with entering the ports of Luanda (Angola), Manila (Mozambique Мозамбик) and Port-Luis (island of Mauritius). Minsk AC visited Bombay (India) and Wonsan (North Korea) in December1982 during combat service campaigns. After the expiry of former Defense Minister Dmitry F. Ustinov (1984) and retirement of Navy Force CINC Gorshkov (1985), interest to Yak-38 planes gradually decreased because of aircraft low-level tactical capabilities. Since 1987 the plane serial production has been stopped, and in 1991 these airplanes have been put out service to reserve and have been gradually recycled. The conditions to provide base for Minsk aircraft carrier were unsatisfactory because of insufficiently developed coast infrastructure of the fleet, that has resulted in the accelerated expiry of the ship service life . Early in 1991, RUAC Minsk was prepared to move to Nikolaev for an urgent average maintenance work. However, the political changes in the country which took place shortly after and sharp reduction of allocations for the Navy have not created opportunity to make it. In 1993 г, a decision was taken to dismount weapon systems from Minsk, and put it out of the Russian Navy Force structure with its further dismantling and reclamation. In August, 1994 after solemn descent of the Naval flag the crew was discontinued and Minsk ship was towed off to Southern Korea for metal scrap cutting late in 1995 . In 2001 the information appeared that "Minsk was converted into tourist travel object.

Source (http://www.armypress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1008)

Casino ehh...

[jatt]

U.S. carriers are only for defense?!, Id think not, the carriers symbolizes the true power of the US navy. Aircraft carriers are made for attack not for defense just like nuclear weapons. The carrier has been for ever a super war machine with many capabilities. Can you tell me why U.S. carriers are in the middle east if they are for defense? Sorry for the of topic just trying to make a point here.
Reply With Quote
They are built to do both. Why do you think a Hornet carrys Harpoons? And besides the best defence is a good offence.

[Sczepan]

I think if we donate enough money together we can save up for the Minsk Aircraft Carrier...
After all, all we have to raise is $16,000,000 USD.. :o
...
Source (http://www.armypress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1008)

Casino ehh...
it's only my personal opinion - trade routs at sea becoming more and more important for China
this Kiew- and Minsk-type could be a nice toy to save and escort trading ships like tankers ..... or to escort a navy fleet .....
http://static.flickr.com/32/36309011_8f8591be6e.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/22/36309007_2c1c903b9a.jpg
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/7294/park21706a2zt.jpg

[renmin]

Check this out, this is China's design concept for their future carrier fighter, looks too me like an improved J-10
this is the site
http://mil.eastday.com/eastday/mil/node62186/node65329/node67900/userobject1ai1208605.html

China's future carrier? PS: those planes arnt JSFs they are the plane you saw above
http://blogmark.blogchina.com/link/316319

[PLABUDDY]

Check this out, this is China's design concept for their future carrier fighter, looks too me like an improved J-10
this is the site
http://mil.eastday.com/eastday/mil/node62186/node65329/node67900/userobject1ai1208605.html

China's future carrier? PS: those planes arnt JSFs they are the plane you saw above
http://blogmark.blogchina.com/link/316319

The proposed CV appears to be European designed. We've posted the same pic in the old ezboard forum before. I doubt the first PLAN CV would look like the one in the pic.
:china:

[FuManChu]

The proposed CV appears to be European designed. We've posted the same pic in the old ezboard forum before. I doubt the first PLAN CV would look like the one in the pic.

Well said, buddy - thanks for pointing that out to us new guys.

I think we've got a case of idle day-dreaming, again. Much like the pictures of the Korean aircraft carrier.

[Tootenhamon]

I think that the vision of future carrier You posted is realy a vision of United Kingdom's future Queen Elizabeth carriers. They will build at least two of them, each one will carry an air wing composed of 45 F-35 JSF and helos. In visions of BAE this carrier is usually presented in black, but seems that someone made in other colors.

And to the point, i think, that the first Chinese aircraft carriers, if nuclear, will be something like French "Charles de Gaule" carrier. Similar wing to Queen Elizabeth, but with Rafale M aircrafts as multirole fighters, definately better than vertically launched F-35 (in my opinnion of course). Rafale seems in many aspects similar to J-10 fighter. Than, when China will already have two such carriers, nuclear proppled, China can get building something like ex-Soviet Oriel or Ulyanovsk class. I presume that you know, that these carriers were as big as Nimitz class (or even bigger than first one). With three such ships PLAN will be able to hold it's place in blue-water doctrine. What to do with Varyag? Training carrier i think, and later when first light nuclear carriers will go commisioned, make it a CVL or at least CVE.

And at the end, sory for mistakes i made, i am still not familiar with this language. Don't be cruel, this was my first post ;)

[bd popeye]

And to the point, i think, that the first Chinese aircraft carriers, if nuclear, will be something like French "Charles de Gaule" carrier. Similar wing to Queen Elizabeth, but with Rafale M aircrafts as multirole fighters, definately better than vertically launched F-35 (in my opinnion of course). Rafale seems in many aspects similar to J-10 fighter. Than, when China will already have two such carriers, nuclear proppled, China can get building something like ex-Soviet Oriel or Ulyanovsk class. I presume that you know, that these carriers were as big as Nimitz class (or even bigger than first one). With three such ships PLAN will be able to hold it's place in blue-water doctrine. What to do with Varyag? Training carrier i think, and later when first light nuclear carriers will go commisioned, make it a CVL or at least CVE.


China's going to build not one but two nuclear CVN's?:confused: Just when will this happen? It takes the USN 7 years total to build a CVN and three years to train it's crew and "work the bugs" out of the ship.

The USS Nimitz is 95,000 tons displacement. Orel was to be about 80,000.

http://www.nol.navy.mil/homepages/cvn68/main.htm

Rafele M better than a F-35 JSF? Which version? I assume you mean the Navalized version. In what ways do you think a Rafale M better than a F-35?
How is the PLAN going to aquire the Rafele M when there is an arms embargo by the EU?

[Tootenhamon]

Hey, that was just my idea, i din't say that China is going to build two or more carriers. I said what i think about future increase in PLAN, not what will hapen.

USS Nimitz now has 95.000 tons displacement, but at the begining, before it's modernisations, it was lighter than now (or someone is giving me incorrect intel). And yes, Orel was to displace 80.000 tons, but i think that when it would be already built, it would have some more with full load, and it would have similar displacement to Nimitz.

I think that Rafale M is at least as good as F-35. Even the americans themselves have considered F-35 as less capable than newest versions of Su-30 fighters. Rafale M is today one of the best sea-fighters ever made (in my opinion) because its made with air fighting from the beginning, multirole fighting is a secondary task (but Rafale is still capable of taking preety much air-surface weaponry). F-35 is a multirole-only. That's what i think.

[bd popeye]

Hey, that was just my idea, i din't say that China is going to build two or more carriers. I said what i think about future increase in PLAN, not what will hapen.

USS Nimitz now has 95.000 tons displacement, but at the begining, before it's modernisations, it was lighter than now (or someone is giving me incorrect intel). And yes, Orel was to displace 80.000 tons, but i think that when it would be already built, it would have some more with full load, and it would have similar displacement to Nimitz.

I think that Rafale M is at least as good as F-35. Even the americans themselves have considered F-35 as less capable than newest versions of Su-30 fighters. Rafale M is today one of the best sea-fighters ever made (in my opinion) because its made with air fighting from the beginning, multirole fighting is a secondary task (but Rafale is still capable of taking preety much air-surface weaponry). F-35 is a multirole-only. That's what i think.

Thanks for your responses. You did well.:)

The weight of the Nimitz is not important really. When the old Soviet Union fell apart so did much of it's military . Thus the Soviet CVN was scrapped although 45% complete. Since that time 15 years ago the Russians have not made any ambitions to build another carrier.

I really can't compare R-M to an F-35. The F-35 is not yet assigned to an operational squadron. That won't happen for 3+ years. So we will have to wait to see what the real capablities of that aircraft is. To me right now it is similar to the F-18 in that it is a jack of all trades and master of none aircraft.

You are saying that a Rafale is better than any sea-fighter ever? Better than a F-14?..really...

[IDonT]

I think that the vision of future carrier You posted is realy a vision of United Kingdom's future Queen Elizabeth carriers. They will build at least two of them, each one will carry an air wing composed of 45 F-35 JSF and helos. In visions of BAE this carrier is usually presented in black, but seems that someone made in other colors.

And to the point, i think, that the first Chinese aircraft carriers, if nuclear, will be something like French "Charles de Gaule" carrier. Similar wing to Queen Elizabeth, but with Rafale M aircrafts as multirole fighters, definately better than vertically launched F-35 (in my opinnion of course). Rafale seems in many aspects similar to J-10 fighter. Than, when China will already have two such carriers, nuclear proppled, China can get building something like ex-Soviet Oriel or Ulyanovsk class. I presume that you know, that these carriers were as big as Nimitz class (or even bi