PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Jeff Head said:

The Liaoning could embark a max of 48 aircraft if she ever had to, the US could embark a max of 92 aircraft. Now, as to strike fighters, the max would be closer to 40 for the PLAN and 82 for the US. Routine in wartime would be closer to 30 strike aircraft for the PLAN and 60 strike aircraft for the US these days. Routine for peace time is going to probably be 24 for the PLAN and 48 for the US. In any case, his numbers are wrong.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Yep...like I said, this is a supposed "expert," who is getting book deals, and yet his knowledge on this subject and extrapolation of data is, IMHO, sorely lacking.

BTW, there towards the end, the idea that the PLAN would send a carrier to do anti-piracy is also pretty ridiculous. Let's see, is anyone else doing that? Err...that would be no.

A good helo or two serve just fine for the frigates and destroyers to extend their reach without committing a carrier. Most we have seen are LPDs and an occasional LHD as a centerpiece or Command Ship for the entire mission.

Click to expand...

To be honest, the somalia part is probably the part which makes most sense in this entire article -- not because the PLAN will use carriers to fight piracy, but rather because that is the sea area where the PRC probably most envisions their carriers to be important in -- i.e.: protecting and patrolling their distant SLOCs in the far seas.

Bltizo said:

To be honest, the somalia part is probably the part which makes most sense in this entire article -- not because the PLAN will use carriers to fight piracy, but rather because that is the sea area where the PRC probably most envisions their carriers to be important in -- i.e.: protecting and patrolling their distant SLOCs in the far seas.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with Chinese carrier deployments for protection of sea lanes to ensure its access to resources are assured, etc...but not against pirates, it's current operations with frigates are perfectly adequate for that.

“They’ll have to hurry if they are going to have four carriers by 2020, though,” said Roger Cliff, senior fellow with the Asia Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

Click to expand...

Yes, PLAN better hurry to get their 4 carriers online stat!!!....seriously Roger? if I'm his boss I'll demote him to a junior fellow! then again his boss is probably even more clueless than he is.

Sad part is these folks actually gets paid quite handsomely and has no clue what they'e talking about!

In addition to ensure its access to resources, I can see the carrier building (and naval build up) is also to intimidate Taiwan (on some level) and for flag showing reasons. In my opinion the current heading the Chinese are may push the whole of the Far East closer into America's orbit and upset the Japanese, who could seriously build up a powerful navy and air force if they were to feel provoked.

Well that is how I see it from way down here at least.

kwaigonegin said:

Yes, PLAN better hurry to get their 4 carriers online stat!!!....seriously Roger? if I'm his boss I'll demote him to a junior fellow! then again his boss is probably even more clueless than he is.

Sad part is these folks actually gets paid quite handsomely and has no clue what they'e talking about!

Click to expand...

Hold your horses. I JUST realized this, but in pretty sure this time it's an asanine misinformed journalist, not a party chief. The official quote by mister Wang said that China would build for carriers and the one in Dalian would be completed by 2020, NOT that all four will be completed by 2020.

latenlazy said:

Hold your horses. I JUST realized this, but in pretty sure this time it's an asanine misinformed journalist, not a party chief. The official quote by mister Wang said that China would build for carriers and the one in Dalian would be completed by 2020, NOT that all four will be completed by 2020.

Click to expand...

I think you missed my sarcasm LOL

kwaigonegin said:

I think you missed my sarcasm LOL

Click to expand...

Internet sarcasm is hard

Roger Cliff himself sounded skeptical.

Today is the start of 15 days holidays in PRC...

I reckon there would be no news updates on CV-16 until after the Lunar New Year holidays...

And yeah, have a prosperous and joyful Lunar New Year all of you

FTS sign out now

Miragedriver said:

In addition to ensure its access to resources, I can see the carrier building (and naval build up) is also to intimidate Taiwan (on some level) and for flag showing reasons. In my opinion the current heading the Chinese are may push the whole of the Far East closer into America's orbit and upset the Japanese, who could seriously build up a powerful navy and air force if they were to feel provoked.

Well that is how I see it from way down here at least.

Click to expand...

Taiwan doesn't need to be intimidated. South Korea is the important country. It is important to that country that there will be no violence between Japan and China. The chance of violence, small at this time, will be reduced if South Korea changes sides to China. That will also make possible the reunification of Korea, one country - two systems. And even before reunification will it make possible the building of a natural gas pipeline from Siberia and connecting South Korea's railways to the Chinese railways including a high speed line Seoul - Pyongyang - Beijing . Those Chinese carriers will be part of the backing for South Korea's change, perhaps even before they are all actually built.